Public
Bill Committee

Tuesday
5 April
2011

(Afternoon)

[Mr
James Gray in the
Chair]

Clause
14

Claimant
commitment

‘and a statement of the
responsibilities of the Secretary of State with regards to that
claimant.’.—(Kate
Green.)

1.30
pm

Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.

The
Chair: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment 2, in
clause 14, page 6, leave out lines 32 and
33 and insert—

‘(c) a
statement of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State with regard
to that claimant,

(d) details
of how the claimant may appeal the contents of the claimant
commitment,

(e) any other
information the Secretary of State considers it appropriate to
include.’.

Kate
Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab): I was saying this
morning that I was disappointed with the Minister’s answer on
what I think we are all agreed is essentially the welfare bargain, to
use a rather unpleasant—and probably American—term. We
are talking about who gives and gets what in return for what, and about
the balance of rights, entitlements, obligations and responsibilities
between the claimant and the
state.

As
I said, it is important that we use this opportunity to ensure that
there is a fair balance between the might of the state and the much
weaker bargaining position of the individual, as well as to create a
genuine sense and spirit of association and shared aspiration between
the personal adviser, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, and
the individual claimant. We believe that that will help strongly to
achieve better employment outcomes. Thirdly, we should send an
important message to the public about how the vast majority of
claimants are serious about wanting to work, as they are, and about the
respect that we afford people who are reliant on safety-net benefits.
We should not somehow treat them as the undeserving other, but as part
of the community as a
whole.

There
is a fundamental philosophical disagreement between us and the
Government—it is probably an unbridgeable divide. The Minister
seems to believe that the transaction is financial and that because the
state is handing out money, it is entitled dictate the terms. I do not
see why we take that view when the state is providing safety-net
benefits in the context of an enabling welfare state that, if we can
get more people into work, will benefit the whole community. We do not
have the same

Column number: 400

take-it-on-our-terms attitude, for example, to the provision of public
health and care through the NHS. We seem to have some particular
dislike of handing money to poor people, and a sense that they are
somehow expected to behave differently—more
obediently—when receiving that form of social support compared
with others. That is an extremely unfortunate context in which to bring
forward radical welfare
reforms.

I
suspect that we will not see the nature of the welfare bargain in the
same way at all. Claimants will be most disappointed with the stance of
Ministers. We will have an opportunity during our consideration of
subsequent amendments to amplify some aspects of the relationship
between the claimant and the state, but as amendment 1 is rather
philosophical—the other amendments go into more detail about
exactly how the relationship can be exercised—I do not intend to
press it to a Division, although our debate has been helpful and
illuminating. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.

Kate
Green: I beg to move amendment 64, in
clause 14, page 6, line 24, leave
out from ‘State’ to end of line 25 and
insert

‘in consultation with the
claimant and may be reviewed and updated by the Secretary of State on a
change of circumstances or on a request by the claimant for it to be
revised.’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:

Amendment 60,
in
clause 14, page 6, line 24, after
‘State’, insert

‘in
conjunction with the
claimant’.

Amendment
61, in
clause 14, page 6, line 25, at
end insert

‘or at the request of
the
claimant’.

Kate
Green: I have tabled a number of amendments to amplify the
operation of the relationship between the claimant and the state. They
reflect a set of arguments that repeat the point about the co-operation
and collaboration between Jobcentre Plus staff—almost acting on
behalf of the Secretary of State—on the one hand, and the
claimant on the other. I probably do not need to repeat those
points.

Also
relevant to the amendments, however, is a particular recognition that a
claimant commitment could be imposed on a claimant in the context of a
particular set of circumstances that could change. It is important that
a change in circumstances would trigger a review of whether the
claimant commitment that had been put in place continued to be
appropriate. The claimant, while perhaps not moving into a different
form of work activity group, might none the less face different
barriers and obstacles to participation in or preparation for
employment, which negotiation involving Jobcentre Plus or the providers
acting for the Secretary of State would, when drawing up a claimant
commitment, have wanted to take into
account.

Amendment
64 would allow for the possibility that a claimant commitment could be
reviewed or varied if the claimant’s circumstances changed. I
hope that the Secretary of State would not have difficulty with that,
at least conceptually, although he might be reluctant for it to be
firmed up in regulations.

Column number: 401

Amendment 64
would also allow a claimant to initiate a request for the claimant
commitment to be varied. Presumably the Minister will be concerned that
that might give a green light to a lot of trivial and unjustified
requests, but that would be unlikely. The claimant will be the person
who knows when their circumstances change, so it would be more likely
that they would want to go to their Jobcentre Plus adviser, or perhaps
to a member of staff of one of the Work programme providers, to
highlight that change and seek a review of those elements of the
claimant commitment that were inappropriate in the light of that
change.

I would
welcome an indication from the Minister about how, in the context of
the establishment of a claimant commitment, such varying circumstances
could be raised and discussed with Jobcentre Plus advisers or Work
programme staff to ensure that the claimant commitment remains at all
times apposite and relevant to the situation in which a claimant finds
themselves. The other amendments in the group repeat the point about
the claimant being able to make a request for an alteration in the
claimant commitment when that seems
appropriate.

I
would also welcome an explanation from the Minister about how flexible
the claimant commitment will be, how often it will be examined with the
claimant, how detailed it will be, and therefore how much more likely
it is that it will need to be reviewed regularly and possibly changed.
How much say will the claimant have in drawing certain elements to the
attention of the officer with whom they are dealing when looking at the
contents of the commitment, and when highlighting changes in their
circumstances? I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some
reassurances about those points.

The
Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris
Grayling): There are two aspects of the way in which I
want to approach the amendments. First, there are technical reasons why
they are not right for the Bill. Secondly, however, I want to provide a
degree of reassurance to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that
it is not intended that a claimant commitment will simply be imposed on
someone, any more than it is intended that the current rules around job
search are imposed on an individual. The individual is subject to
certain rules and guidelines, but the planning of the job search is
done in a partnership between an individual and an
adviser.

Of
course, one of the reasons why we are not simply adopting the existing
job search requirements is that the universal credit can apply to a
claimant both pre and post-employment. In many cases, we may be looking
at somebody who has taken that first step into work and is then, having
established themselves in work, looking to move on, in terms of either
the number of hours they work, or finding something more substantial.
That is a key reason why we have changed the nature of what we are
doing.

Let me start
with the technical points. There are two key aspects to the amendments.
First, they would require advisers to prepare the claimant commitment
“in conjunction” or “in consultation” with
the claimant. Secondly, they would allow the Secretary of State to
update the claimant commitment following a request by the claimant or a
change in the claimant’s circumstances. Let me deal with each of
those aspects in turn.

Column number: 402

Our
understanding is that the
phrase

“in
consultation with the claimant”

in amendment 64, or the
phrase

“in
conjunction with the
claimant”

in
amendment 60, would mean that requirements should be imposed only
through a process of discussion, engagement and, potentially,
agreement. However, there will be a number of circumstances in which
that is not practical and when the requirements in the claimant
commitment are non-negotiable. For example, the requirements to report
changes of circumstance and to provide evidence of compliance are
obvious examples of those for which it is absolutely clear that the
claimant will follow the rule book. It is not appropriate for such
requirements to be subject to discussion or negotiation along the lines
that would be required by the
amendments.

There
are also some fundamental work-related requirements that the claimant
cannot reasonably or realistically be expected to be able to call into
question. The group that a claimant falls into makes it clear what
these requirements are for each individual claimant. A claimant in the
all-work-related requirements group must look for work, while a
claimant in the work-focused-interviews-only group must attend
work-focused interviews. Those basic responsibilities must be
met.

Yvonne
Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab): I want to ensure that the
claimant understands the commitment that they make. There was an
incident in my constituency when a claimant did not understand the
requirement to attend a work-focused interview. The Jobcentre Plus
advisor had booked an Urdu translator, but the claimant spoke very
little Urdu, and they were sanctioned for not attending the interview
when they did not understand what they were supposed to
do.

Chris
Grayling: The hon. Lady makes a fair point. It is an
obvious shame that the person in that situation had not mastered the
English language, and that is something that we will have to address
for people who come to this country. However, there is an appeal
mechanism for such a situation, and if someone has been judged or
sanctioned inappropriately, they have a mechanism through which they
can appeal—and rightly so. I cannot claim that the system will
be perfect, as mistakes will always be made, but I know that Jobcentre
Plus staff endeavour to ensure that that does not
happen.

Ian
Swales (Redcar) (LD): Is the Minister happy that the
proposals will be able to cope with people with mental health issues or
who have particular intermittent health issues—either mental or
physical—such as myalgic encephalomyelitis? I know from my
constituency work that that is often part of the
problem.

Chris
Grayling: I am acutely aware of the issues to which the
hon. Gentleman refers. There is a clear instruction from Ministers to
Jobcentre Plus that one area in which we expect front-line staff to use
discretion is when there is evidence of mental health problems. One
cannot always be certain that those problems will be apparent at first
glance, but we have to work very hard to get this right. Front-line
advisers certainly have discretion over whether to sanction someone,
and one of the things that we expect them to look for is a mental
health issue, and that should be reflected when any decisions are
taken.

Column number: 403

We agree that
there is an important role for discussion and consultation when setting
the specifics of any requirement. Indeed, I would go further than that.
One of the changes that we are putting into place in Jobcentre Plus is
to try to ensure that when it comes to job search, an individual deals
with the same adviser all of the time rather than a different person
every week. That is an important aspect of creating an ongoing,
joined-up process. I expect that the claimant commitment will determine
exactly what work a person is looking for, when or if a work-focused
interview should be taking place, and the nature of any training that
they need to carry
out.

I
expect that the interviews will be used to develop an understanding of
all factors relevant to job search requirements, and also to understand
a bit more about the person themselves—their caring
responsibilities, their health and their work history. In much the same
way as already happens with jobseeker’s allowance, we expect the
discussion with the adviser to be central to shaping the nature of the
back-to-work effort. Claimants might have to look for and be available
for work as a condition of entitlement to benefit, but the nature of
the job search that they pursue is down to the individual
discussion.

I
shall now touch on the second aspect of the amendments: allowing the
Secretary of State to update the commitment following a request by the
claimant or a change of circumstance. The clause already allows changes
to be made to the commitment in line with hon. Members’
proposals. The commitment is intended to be a record of requirements
imposed on a claimant. It is the main way in which we will inform
claimants of the requirements that they must meet, so it is essential
that we keep it up to date, and the clause gives us the ability to
review the commitment whenever that is appropriate, which will include
whenever requirements imposed on a claimant are changed or need to
change.

We
have already discussed how the requirements imposed on a claimant must
take account of all relevant matters, and not just at the beginning of
a claim but throughout a claimant’s time on benefit. We will
review requirements following a relevant change of circumstance, when a
claimant brings a particular issue to our attention, or if the nature
of job search changes. For example, it might become clear that a
claimant is not going to get a job in one area of employment and
therefore needs to start to look for something
else.

I
see this as an ongoing process of discussion between an individual and
the adviser. Of course, an individual will have the right to say to the
adviser, “What about this and that?” There is an
obligation for changes of circumstance to be discussed. The mandatory
aspect is that there are some things within the process that are a
given, such as the requirement to look for a
job.

1.45
pm

Stephen
Timms (East Ham) (Lab): Has the Minister seen some of the
significant academic research that seems to indicate that if such
commitments are co-designed—in this case between the Jobcentre
Plus adviser and the individual—there is a good prospect that
they will work better due to the degree of commitment on both
sides?

Column number: 404

Chris
Grayling: I accept that. In operational terms, we expect
that the adviser will sit down with the jobseeker at the initial
interview and work through a job search plan. That is what happens now
and we expect it to continue, but certain elements have to be able to
be mandated by the Secretary of State. That is all the Bill provides
for, but the amendments would make that more
difficult.

I
say to the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston that this is of course
a joint effort. One reason why we are making changes to Jobcentre Plus
is to ensure that there is an ongoing relationship between a claimant
and an individual adviser. The primary legislation sets out the
parameters for us to put in place the minimum conditions for job search
that apply to every job seeker, or everyone in a particular position as
regards the conditionality that applies to them, whether that is
attending a work-focused interview, looking for a job or notifying us
about a change of
circumstances.

I
hope that that reassures the hon. Lady. There is certainly no intention
simply to instruct an individual of what they should do without them
having any input at all, but there is a need for a basic level of
conditionality that every claimant has to meet, and that has to be able
to be written into the claimant commitment in an unfettered
way.

Kate
Green: I am grateful to the Minister his helpful and
detailed response on how the Government intend the drafting and the
ongoing life of a claimant commitment document to be approached, and
also on the elements in the process that are to be mandated. We do not
take any issue with the notion that there are mandatory elements to the
relationship between a claimant and the state when the claimant is in
receipt of universal credit. That is not new; it is clearly the
fundamental basis of our social security system for out-of-work
claimants
now.

It
was helpful to hear from the Minister that the intention is that the
claimant will play a full part in discussing and being consulted on the
factors that need to be considered when drawing up their commitment,
including their point of view. As my right hon. Friend the Member for
East Ham pointed out, that approach is much more likely to produce a
robust and effective commitment for achieving the outcome that we all
seek: claimant commitments that have been drawn up in a way that
improves the likelihood that a claimant will, when possible, move into
employment and progress.

It was
particularly welcome that the Minister confirmed the important point
that the document will, in a sense, be a living document in the context
of a benefit that is both an in-work and an out-of-work benefit. We do
not yet have much information about what the in-work conditionality
will look like, when it will be applied and at what point the claimant
may be called in for further discussion when in receipt of financial
support. Clearly the claimant commitment needs to be flexible enough to
reflect the fact that the extent of employment can change and that
people move in and out of work, so a single and unvarying claimant
commitment might not be
suitable.

We
have heard helpful reassurances from the Minister and I welcomed his
response, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.

Column number: 405

Kate
Green: I beg to move amendment 65, in
clause 14, page 6, leave out line 26 and
insert—

‘(3) A claimant
commitment will be in a form prescribed by the Secretary of
State.

(3A) Regulations made
for the purposes of subsection (3) make provision for a claimant to
appeal the content of a commitment
where—

(a) the claimant
could not be reasonably expected to comply with the requirements of the
commitment,

(b) complying with
the commitment could not be reasonably expected to make it more likely
that the claimants would obtain or remain in
work.’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 66, in
clause 14, page 6, line 36, at
end insert—

‘(6) A claimant
who appeals the contents of a claimant commitment under the provisions
of subsection (3A) shall be deemed to have complied with the commitment
pending a decision on the
appeal.’.

Kate
Green: We are nearly at the end of the amendments on the
claimant
commitment.

Amendment
65 would offer the opportunity for a claimant to appeal the content of
a commitment when it was not reasonable to expect that they could
comply with its conditions or, perhaps more subtly, when the claimant
could comply with the conditions, but doing so would not make it more
likely that they would obtain or remain in work. That second leg to
amendment 65 is important for what we think that we are trying to
achieve, and it goes back to the nature of the relationship between the
state and the claimant. We are not talking about developing a system
that is punitive or that is intended to be some sort of warning of what
will happen if people do not find work. We genuinely intend to see
universal credit developed in a way that supports and enables people,
when possible, to move into paid
work.

There
seems little point in expecting a claimant to go through a series of
hoops and loops, activities and engagements that do not increase their
likelihood of obtaining or remaining in work, not least because that
would significantly undermine the credibility of the claimant
commitment. It is important that the claimant feels that the commitment
has real relevance and will be effective in helping to move them
towards paid employment. Otherwise, the nature of the relationship with
the adviser will be difficult. Again, that goes back to the point that
the best and most effective agreements are those that are made in a
genuinely co-operative spirit, where the aspirations, goals and
activities are agreed as much as possible between the claimant and the
adviser.

It
is right to say that Jobcentre Plus advisers are often highly regarded
by claimants for the way that they are able to understand and build a
relationship with them. However, where none of that is going
on—we hope that that is very rare—it is right that
claimants can exercise appeal rights to say that the commitment is
inappropriate, perhaps because they simply could not be reasonably
expected to comply with the conditions, which will be a clear-cut,
evidential matter. More subtly, perhaps claimants comply with the
conditions, but they do not see what will be achieved in getting them
closer to paid work.

1.51
pm

Sitting
suspended for a Division in the House.

Column number: 406

2.3
pm

On
resuming—

Kate
Green: I was just about to invite the hon. Member for
Redcar to intervene, and I would be delighted if he did so now, because
it would give me a breathing space.

Ian
Swales: Does the hon. Lady agree that the activities that
claimants are expected to undertake should be proportionate and
appropriate to their circumstances? Would she agree that a graduate in
my constituency who has been asked to go on a three-month CV-writing
course should not have to do so and that whatever box that is enabling
someone to tick should not be part of the
process?

Kate
Green: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We hear
reports of such frankly irrelevant, potentially insulting and time and
money-wasting endeavours, which get people to fill in time, rather than
improving their employment prospects. Clearly, as he says, any
commitment that the claimant is required to comply with should be
proportionate, relevant and likely to increase the chances of their
remaining in or obtaining work. Conversely, claimants are often keen to
undertake forms of education or training that they believe, but the
adviser may not perceive, will improve their employment prospects. That
goes to the heart of the need for the claimant commitment to be the
result of a shared discussion and collaboration. Where it is quite
clear that the activities that a claimant has been required to
undertake are not likely to improve their employment prospects, it
seems wholly appropriate that they should be able to question the
commitment’s conditions.

The Minister
has helpfully said that a claimant will have the opportunity to go back
and raise such issues, as well as changes in circumstance, but we
cannot be confident that they will always be given a receptive
response. Where a real breakdown occurs between what a claimant
believes to be the likelihood of obtaining work and the view of the
adviser who is imposing the conditions, it seems right that the
claimant’s interests are protected to the extent that he or she
is able to appeal the content of a commitment that has been
imposed.

Amendment
66 goes a little further in unpicking what would happen if a claimant
were, in whatever circumstances, to lodge an appeal against the
contents of the claimant commitment. It makes the not at all remarkable
proposition that the claimant should be treated as complying with the
commitment pending a decision on appeal. It would clearly be wrong to
sanction a claimant who might be shown to have a perfectly legitimate
case. It is not at all unusual for penalties to be stayed where appeals
are made or queries raised about process. That is true in the social
security system and much more generally in public policy. In fairness
to the claimant, amendment 66 suggests that he or she should be deemed
to be complying with the commitment until the outcome of the appeal is
determined.

I hope that
the Government will be amenable at least to the sentiment behind the
amendments. Perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity to clarify
exactly what appeal rights will exist in the context of the claimant
commitment and how he envisages that claimants might, where
appropriate, initiate such an appeal. I would

Column number: 407

expect—I am sure that we all hope—that such a process
would be used only rarely. It is, however, an important protection for
the claimant that, where something goes badly awry in the imposition of
a claimant commitment, they have the right of appeal and can seek
redress.

Chris
Grayling: Let me touch on some of the detail referred to
by hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston. The amendment would require
us to make regulations that prescribe the form of the claimant
commitment in universal credit, whether electronically or in hard copy,
but clause 14 will allow the Secretary of State the freedom to choose
the form in which the claimant commitment will be made. In reality, it
will be for the delivery agency—Jobcentre Plus,
predominantly—to decide the best way to set out that
commitment.

I do not
think that that element of the hon. Lady’s proposal needs to be
prescribed in regulations. However, that really was not the essence of
her argument, which was about an individual’s right of appeal
against the claimant commitment. I remind her that our intention, as I
described in the debate on the previous amendment, is for this
genuinely to be a two-way process. A relationship should be built up
between an individual claimant and an adviser, and they should work
together on the job search. It is certainly our intention that there
will be a sensible discussion about what is and what is not
necessary.

There
will be times when the adviser has to put a foot down. For example, if
someone has been working in a profession but is having no success
whatsoever in finding appropriate opportunities in that field, the
rules rightly say that three months into the process they have to think
about doing something different. The individual might be reluctant to
accept the need to look more broadly for a job, but the adviser needs
to put their foot down and say, “I’m afraid this is the
point at which there’s no choice; you’ve got to broaden
the horizons of your job search.” The process should be a
collaborative exercise between two individuals, but there will be
moments when the adviser has to set the terms of trade for the job
search.

The
appeal process kicks in when someone says,
“I’m not willing to do the things that
I’ve been asked to do.” That right of appeal exists
because a sanction inevitably applies at that point. If, for example,
the Jobcentre Plus adviser has resolved that an individual needs to
start looking for something else, has established with them that they
need additional IT training and has said, “I’m going to
send you on an IT training course for a couple of weeks,” and
the individual then turns around and says, “I won’t
go,” they will be sanctioned and they have a right of
appeal—a right to say, “I don’t think
that’s correct.” The system normally reviews the decision
internally and then refers it externally for a proper appeal. If the
decision to sanction is not upheld, the situation returns to the
individual’s status quo
ante.

That
covers the situation that the hon. Lady described, and I am not
convinced about adding an extra right of appeal—allowing someone
to appeal against a decision to send them on a course—because we
would end up with a double appeal process. She wants a right for the
individual to say, “No, I don’t want to do that
course,” and if they are sanctioned for that, the right to turn
around and say, “No, that’s not acceptable; I want to

Column number: 408

appeal.” That would add an extra unnecessary layer of complexity
to the system, thus causing practical and operational
problems.

A
number of things in the commitment are essential. We must be able to
set out rules for job search, attending work-focused interviews and
fortnightly signing-on requirements, and we clearly could not offer a
right of appeal in those circumstances. The question arises, therefore,
only if an individual does not agree when an adviser asks them to do
something that is not within the conventional confines of job search,
such as going on a course. If the adviser says, “I
insist,” the individual says, “I refuse,” and a
sanction is applied, there is a right of appeal against the sanction. I
believe that that process does the job that the hon. Lady
requires.

We could not
include a right of appeal against much of the commitment’s
content, because it is a fundamental part of the rules for the receipt
of benefits. Given that and the fact I have said that a right of appeal
for individuals who feel that they are mistreated by the system is
enshrined in the legal position that I described earlier, I hope that
the hon. Lady will withdraw the
amendment.

Picking
up on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar, I have
heard exactly the same stories about people who are inappropriately
sent on a provision that would not be right for them, and that is
precisely why we want to change the nature of support in Jobcentre Plus
and in the Work programme. We have had one-size-fits-all approaches.
For example, the 13-week new deal programme has all too often required
individuals to sit in a classroom for 13 weeks reading the paper. We
have all had complaints about such approaches over the years, and I
absolutely accept that the format has not always been
appropriate.

I hope that
with the greater flexibility that we are offering to Jobcentre Plus and
through the Work programme, the situation that the hon. Member for
Stretford and Urmston is anxious about will not arise in the future. To
reassure her, ultimately, there is always the right of appeal. If
people say, “I don’t want to do that; it is not
appropriate for me,” they face a sanction, to which they have a
right of appeal. I hope that she will be satisfied that the process
will be sufficient to do the job that she
wishes.

2.15
pm

Kate
Green: I am grateful to the Minister for the clarification
that he has given on the continuing status of appeal rights. It will be
important for claimants to be clearly aware of their rights and how to
exercise them, which is not always so in what remains a complex social
security system. If the universal credit claims to be simpler and more
transparent to the claimant, I hope it will include clear information
for claimants when they are in a situation in which an appeal might be
an appropriate remedy to attempt. I hope that information on how to
exercise that right will be easy to access and simple to
understand.

I do not
think that any Opposition Members disagree that there will be times
when an adviser will want to set down conditions that the claimant is
unwilling to accept. As the Minister has pointed out, there is already
a process to deal with such situations. If the process leads to a
sanction that the claimant feels is unjustified, that

Column number: 409

sanction can be appealed. I hope that it will be possible within the
context of the claimant commitment to ensure that that right is clear
to the claimant. Claimants must also have clarity about the
consequences of non-compliance, including the possible financial
consequences. They must be clear about the obligations that they are
expected to meet under the provision and about how to seek redress when
they are unhappy.

I have found
the Minister’s remarks helpful. We all share the hope that, in
practice, very little use will be made of the existing appeal
provisions. It is especially important, however, to have clear appeal
provisions, because a substantial part of the support for claimants is
now going to disappear into the famous black box. We need to be certain
that what goes on in that black box on behalf of the Secretary of State
is properly protecting claimants’ interests, and that claimants
know how to raise concerns about their treatment, which could
ultimately be exercised through their formal right of appeal where a
sanction arises.

There might
be other circumstances in which a claimant feels that a
situation—particularly in relation to the black
box—although not leading to a sanction, is unduly onerous,
unreasonable or burdensome. I hope that the Minister ensures that clear
complaints processes are available to claimants when they are unhappy.
Of course, if such processes are good, well designed and easily
accessible, they will in themselves help to reduce the incidence of
cases that go to appeal. I am prepared to accept the Minister’s
reassurances, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14
ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause
15

Work-focused
interview
requirement

Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.

Stephen
Timms: I want to raise a matter with the Minister
that makes its first appearance in the Bill, in clause 15. In doing so,
I am conscious that the Secretary of State for Health paid a heavy
price yesterday in the Chamber for pushing ahead with a badly thought
out Bill. Part of the Committee’s duty is to seek to protect
this Minister—and indeed his Secretary of State—from a
similar fate. We have already established today some worrying gaps
around child care in the Bill. To be fair, the Secretary of State was
very frank with us about the difficulties the Government were having in
deciding what to do about child care support. We also discussed free
school meals—where we had not previously been told there was a
problem—and other passported benefits, such as free
prescriptions and, I presume, mortgage interest support. The Minister
made the point about free school meals—they are not a social
security benefit, whereas mortgage interest support is. Presumably the
Government are not in a position to say who will receive mortgage
interest
support.

In
clause 15, we come to another area—I think for the first
time—which is a significant departure from the way the system
has always operated. That is the proposal that people who are in work
should be subject to conditions set by the jobcentre. We are all
familiar with

Column number: 410

the arrangements that apply to people who are out of work, and the
conditions and responsibilities imposed on them to assist them into
work. In subsection (3), there is a little phrase in brackets at the
end, which opens up for the first time the idea that people will be
required to undertake a work-focused interview, even though they are
already in work, in order to get a job entailing more hours or pay than
their current one. As we go through clause 15 and subsequent clauses,
that little phrase in brackets, appears several times, indicating that
the Government intend to open up the possibility of a range of measures
being taken to encourage people in work to get a better job. I well
understand why Ministers are interested in
that.

Charlie
Elphicke (Dover) (Con): I am a little puzzled by the right
hon. Gentleman’s remarks. My understanding is that this is a
codification of the position that already exists under the Employment
and Support Allowance Regulations 2008, which I believe—correct
me if I am wrong—also contain the phrase “or more paid
work or better-paid work”.

Stephen
Timms: I was reflecting on the position with
jobseeker’s allowance in the past. I think I am right in
saying—and the Minister will correct me if I am
not—conditionality has only applied where people have been out
of
work.

Chris
Grayling: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that under the
16-hour rule, there is still an obligation to attend the jobcentre, to
sign on and be subject to
conditionality.

Stephen
Timms: Indeed. What has changed—and the reason that
this is a more prominent and novel feature of this
legislation—is the removal of the 16-hour rule, and the wish the
Government have explained to provide support for people who are in
mini-jobs. The truth is that if people increase their pay, either by
increasing their hours or by moving to a better-paid job, the call on
universal credit will be reduced, and the Exchequer saves money.
Therefore, it is perfectly appropriate for Ministers to wish that to
happen. It will be a much bigger issue in the future than the past
because of support for mini-jobs. I can well see that the Government
would not wish people to avoid all conditionality if they are working
for, say, one hour a week, with support from universal credit,
including perhaps for the cost of child care associated with working
for that one hour. It is perfectly proper that the Government would
wish to encourage them to work for longer. That said, I think this is a
significant change, introducing us to a potentially quite intrusive
monitoring of people who are in work.

I want to ask
the Minister a few questions as to how this will operate in practice.
Will he assure us that people in full-time work will not be required to
attend a work-focused interview under the provision in
clause 15? How about people who are working 16 hours a week?
Will he assure us that they will not be required to attend a
work-focused interview? If there is the possibility of somebody who
works 16 hours a week being required to attend a work-focused
interview, when will such interviews be held, and where? What if the
employer, albeit one for only 16 hours a week, objects to the person
attending such an interview?

Column number: 411

Depending on
the extent to which the Minister envisages that happening, it could
certainly be a significant new obligation for jobcentre staff to
fulfil. I wonder whether he can tell us what assessment he has made of
the staffing that will be required to carry out that additional work.
How will obligations that are imposed—more under the following
clauses than this one—on people who are already in work differ
from those imposed on people not in work? For example, could somebody
who is in work be required to attend a training course? If that
conflicted with their work responsibilities, which one would they be
expected to do? What about people—and many are in this
position—who perhaps on paper do not seem to be doing many hours
or very much work but who in reality are struggling to juggle, for
example, work and child care? What sort of obligations could be imposed
on them? Would they be required to attend these work-focused
interviews, too?

The Bill
makes it clear that people in work could be required immediately to
give up a job to take on another with longer hours or higher pay. Would
self-employed people be in danger of having to give up their business
in order to take up higher-paid work somewhere else? Would there be
some minimum pay rise specified, below which it would not be necessary
to change jobs? On the face of it, somebody could be required to leave
their job to gain £2 a week, which would be modestly in the
Exchequer’s interest, but people would presumably not be
required to do that. Would there be some kind of threshold of increased
pay that would have to be exceeded for people to have to change jobs?
How, in practice, will such requirements be constrained?

The clause
raises a large number of questions. It is important that the Minister
starts to give us some answers about this new area of the Bill, which
we have not yet explored. I hope that that will make a modest
contribution towards his avoiding the discomfiture suffered by his
right hon. Friend yesterday.

Chris
Grayling: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his
concern about my welfare. It is much appreciated.

Let me set
out how we seek to approach the issue. As the right hon. Gentleman
understands, it is necessary and appropriate to encourage people to
take steps further back into the job market, when their circumstances
permit. Clearly, one circumstance that puts a constraint on people is
bringing up children. At particular stages of children’s lives,
it is more difficult for a lone parent, for example, to be able to do
more than a certain number of hours of work. At the same time, we want
to use universal credit as a ladder for people to climb up the work
scale, and in particular, for those entering employment for the first
time after a long period on benefits, where the experience of a
mini-job may prove to be a valuable way of beginning to get a foothold
in the work place. It could be very valuable for somebody with a
disability, for example, to get their first experience of work for a
long time and get a sense of what they can and cannot do, then
gradually begin to build up on that.

Let us be
absolutely clear that if somebody is doing a full-time job and earning
a reasonable wage, it is not likely that we would seek, in any way, to
monitor their progress. It is about helping people to a point where
they have moved out of that lower level of activity to a

Column number: 412

much greater degree of self-sufficiency, while still potentially
receiving support under universal credit. There are clearly
limitations, however, to the degree to which we could or would
practically seek to monitor people beyond a certain stage. I do not
think that it is unreasonable to say to somebody, who is going into a
short-hours, part-time job to start off with, that they would come back
into the jobcentre from time to time—periodically, every few
months—to talk about their prospects, and that we would seek to
put some additional conditionality on them, as and when it became
possible to do so, to move to a job with longer hours.

A practical
example of that might well be a lone parent who does a part-time job
during her children’s younger years. As the children grow up,
the parent can move on to a greater degree of employment. I do not
think it unreasonable that we should talk to that person at that point
about their options or have a degree of push within the system to
encourage them to step up the number of hours that they
work.

Kate
Green: I am interested in what the Minister is describing.
Does he accept that the same argument could apply to one member of a
couple who works very low hours while the other member also works
relatively low hours? To return to a point discussed earlier this week,
one of the things that most disconnects women in particular from the
labour market is that they spend long periods either doing a series of
short-term low-hours jobs or having no job at all. Where there is a
couple claim in play, does he envisage that one or both members could
be required to come in for reconsideration of their engagement with the
jobcentre, irrespective of what is happening to the other member of the
couple?

Chris
Grayling: Yes. There are clearly circumstances in which
that could happen, although it would not necessarily happen in all
circumstances. It will depend on the circumstances surrounding the
individual. However, the situation now is that someone who works up to
16 hours a week is still subject to job-search conditions.
If someone receives employment and support allowance, there is
permitted work, which still requires contact with the system. We want
to create an environment in which we help, support, encourage and
cajole to move forward to the next stage in their working life as and
when circumstances permit.

2.30
pm

Stephen
Timms: Will the Minister say a little about the position
of people who work more than 16 hours but not full time? Does he
envisage that they will be within the scope of the cajoling and
encouraging that he describes?

Chris
Grayling: Yes, I can perfectly well see such a situation.
As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, we have argued over the
years that there should be clear limitations on how many hours we
expect a lone parent with a child in primary school to work. When a
child is very young, clearly we want the mother to be around, where
humanly possible, to pick up the child from school and care for it
after school. We have set definitions, as did he and his
Administration, of a reasonable job offer—we do not expect lone
parents to work night

Column number: 413

shifts, for example—but as children get older, the opportunity
arises for parents to work longer hours, and it is perfectly reasonable
that we should encourage them to do so in order to reduce their
reliance on the state, increase the amount of money coming into their
household and, where the household is still on low income, help them
lift their family out of
poverty.

Yes,
we envisage using the work-focused interview periodically with people
who claim universal credit: not those who have advanced into a
full-time, reasonably paid job but those who work fewer hours and whose
circumstances might permit them to work more hours. We envisage that
they will be asked to attend work-focused interviews, although not in a
way that clashes with their current employment or requires them to
undertake training that would make it impossible for them to continue
their current employment. That would not make sense. We would bring
them in every few months to discuss their circumstances. Where it has
clearly become practical for them to move on to the next stage of
employment, we expect them to do so, and there will be a degree of
conditionality as well of support and help to do
so.

Kate
Green: Is the intention of those conversations to
encourage people to move into jobs for better pay and at longer hours,
or into a series of jobs added together that will apparently improve
pay but certainly increase working hours? There is plenty of evidence
that a patchwork of mini-jobs will be extremely difficult for many
people to sustain and is likely to undermine the simplicity of the
universal credit payment.

Chris
Grayling: Ministers’ intent is certainly not the
latter. It is all about people moving closer to full-time employment in
a single job and us providing them with support and encouragement to do
so. It is not simply about saying, “You’ve got two hours
to spare on a Monday morning, so go find a job for those two
hours.” It is all about supporting people who have taken a step
into employment to progress towards full-time employment. Our
goal—the goal of the work programme and, where practical, of
Jobcentre Plus—is, where it is conducive to their life and
surrounding issues such as child care responsibilities, to enable
people to move into full-time, single-job employment if
possible.

Stephen
Timms: May I press my point about self-employed people?
Could a jobcentre adviser look at a self-employed person and say that
they were not earning very much, that they could earn more if they went
for another job, and that therefore they should give up their business?
Is that
possible?

Chris
Grayling: That is not our intention. There would
inevitably come a point when, if a person is in self-employment and is
barely continuing above the threshold of support, we will look quite
carefully. The right hon. Gentleman and I have discussed before the
issue of self-employment. There has to be a point below which
self-employment is so virtually non-existent over a sustained period
that a degree of job search has to come into play. A person cannot
simply say, “Well, I am self-employed for an hour a week”
and then do nothing else. It certainly would not be our intention,
however, to prevent somebody who was building a business from doing
so—if they were showing good purpose, good

Column number: 414

intent and working hard—to make them apply for a different job.
It is our desire to see self-employment grow and develop, and we
recognise that building a business is a slow grind sometimes and has
its ups and downs. So it would not be our intention for that to be the
case. Clearly, if somebody was pursuing a self-employment option that
just was not working, then at that point we might say no, they will
have to look for something else. Our intention, however, would always
to be to support people in self-employment.

I
hope that gives shadow Ministers and other members of the Committee a
sense of what we are trying to achieve. This is a development from
where we stand at the moment in and around the 16-hours rule. It is
about helping people, where they can practically and sensibly do so, to
move to a point where they are much more financially independent of the
state.

Sheila
Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): I wonder whether the
Minister has made any assessment of whether this additional task will
require additional staff in jobcentres, and whether provision have been
made for
that.

Chris
Grayling: We have some provision in the plans for
Jobcentre Plus, particularly in the budgets for universal credit, to
provide for an element of conditionality. We have more detailed work to
do to establish exactly the kind of frequency and the parameters for
doing so, because that has clearly got to fit within the resources that
are available to us as well. If we can succeed in helping people move
further up the work ladder, that will help reduce their dependence on
the universal credit and help increase their contribution in tax and
national insurance, and therefore it is a benefit to the nation as a
whole.

Lilian
Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab): I want to come back to
the point about encouraging people to shift jobs in order to move into
one that perhaps has a few more hours, or a slightly higher pay level.
It just occurred to me that people who are returning to the labour
market and perhaps trying to develop their CV will be looking to
acquire a degree of stability with an employer that demonstrates to
other employers that they have got staying power. Also, if they stay
with an employer for longer, they will start to build up employment
rights, which might be important for people with a young family; for
example, for access to maternity leave at a higher level. How does the
Minister envisage Jobcentre Plus staff balancing that with
people’s wish to develop that sense of being a reliable,
committed employee, rather than someone who changes jobs on a regular
basis?

Chris
Grayling: I get the hon. Lady’s point. I think it
is about the application of common sense. This is not about getting
someone to apply for a new job every month. Let us take the case of
somebody with a disability who goes back into work for 12 hours a week,
spends a year doing that work and is by then performing well and has
clearly settled back into the working environment. That person has the
potential to do more, but that particular employer does not have the
opportunity for them to do more. At that point, it makes logical sense
for them to be given help and assistance to move on into something with
longer hours. That is how we envisage the system working.

Column number: 415

I hope that
that provides reassurance to members of the Committee. It is about
doing the right thing for people. It is about helping to lift them and
their families out of poverty by their moving up the income scale. I
hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the
clause.

Question
put and agreed
to.

Clause
15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
16

Work
preparation
requirement

Stephen
Timms: I rise to speak to amendment
71.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 72, in clause 17, page 8, leave
out line
22.

Stephen
Timms: Amendment 71 is on the amendment paper because I
was puzzled by clause 16, which states what actions might be specified
and then lists half a dozen or so different actions. The last
states:

“any
action prescribed for the purpose”.

I could not understand
why there was one list in the Bill and then potentially another list in
the regulations. I have now had the opportunity to read the note on
regulations, which explains that the Government do not have any other
item to add to the list, but that they want the ability to do so in
future if a useful idea occurs to them. That seems to be a perfectly
sensible explanation, and if I had had the notes on regulations
earlier, I would not have tabled the
amendment.

I
do not know whether I can not move the amendment, having explained why
it is on the amendment paper. If I can, I will happily not do
so.

The
Chair: It is perfectly in order not to move the
amendment.

Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.

Stephen
Timms: I have a few questions for the Minister about other
aspects of the clause. Work-focused, health-related assessments are a
good idea, and were introduced by the previous Government to assess how
someone’s impairment affects their ability to work, and how to
overcome the barriers they face in getting into work, leading to a plan
for moving towards work. The practice has been criticised for a couple
of reasons, and I think I am right in saying that these assessments are
not currently carried out, and were suspended last year.

As I
understand them, the criticisms are, first, that the assessment must be
carried out by medical professionals who do not know much about work
places. It has been suggested that it would be better if they were
carried out by someone not necessarily with medical training, but with
training in the individual’s specific impairment and the support
that they might require. Secondly, they were criticised for being
carried out late, often long after someone had started on their plan
for moving back to work.

Column number: 416

What
are the Government’s plans for the assessments? Having suspended
them last year, do they intend to bring them back into use, and what
will be different about them in future? When will they be carried out,
and who will conduct them, given the widespread view that Atos
Healthcare professionals may not be the best people to conduct
them.

Ian
Swales: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the company
that has been carrying out many of the assessments. Does he agree that
an appeal rate of more than 50%, given that some people do not appeal,
is far too high? The suggestion that it may be getting as many as 60%
of its assessments wrong shows that something is wrong with the system.
Does he believe that part of the problem may be the payment-by-results
framework?

Stephen
Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s latter
suggestion is not the case, although I agree that the rate of success
on appeal is high. That certainly raises questions, although I
understand, having been on the other side of the debate, how difficult
it is to put in place a system that gets the assessments right. I think
the figures he mentioned refer to work-capability assessments.
Work-focused, health-related assessments are rather different, and the
idea was simply to come up with contributions towards a plan to get
back to work, a wholly positive and constructive contribution to
helping people. In practice, that is not what happened, so the
Government suspended
them.

Charlie
Elphicke: The right hon. Gentleman hides his light under a
bushel. He will recall that this and the previous clause build on a
whole load of machinery under the regulations that he signed in 2008.
Given the problems that he identified with work-focused, health-related
assessments, and if he were still in Government, what would he do to
put right the problems that he correctly
outlined?

Stephen
Timms: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tribute
to my modesty. I have made it clear that I think work-focused,
health-related assessments are a valuable contribution to the system. I
have indicated what I think the problems were that led the Government
to suspend them. If I had still been in office, I am not sure that I
would have suspended them, but I can understand the thinking that led
the Minister to conclude that they should be suspended. I will
certainly be very sad if the whole idea were to be dropped entirely, so
I am glad to see that the assessments are still in the Bill. I want to
find out what the Minister’s intentions are for taking them
forward and I hope bringing them back into use, so that that
particularly good set of regulations can have effect once
more.

The
second aspect that I want to ask about is what is often referred to as
workfare. Subsection (3)(e) refers
to

“undertaking
work experience or a work
placement”.

Working
for benefit is often referred to as workfare. I do not object to the
principle of mandatory work for benefit, but I want to know what the
Minister makes of the evidence, which is now fairly substantial, around
the effects of workfare. He will know of the academic report provided
for the Department in 2008, which was called “A comparative
review of workfare programmes in the United States, Canada and
Australia”. It found that evidence on the effectiveness of
workfare is still rather limited. The report points out that the number
of

Column number: 417

people who undergo workfare in any of those countries, even in the US,
is actually quite low. Some conclusions caught my
eye:

“There
is little evidence that workfare increases the likelihood of finding
work. It can even reduce employment chances by limiting the time
available for job search…Workfare is least effective in getting
people into jobs in weak labour markets where unemployment is high.
Levels of non-participation in mandatory activities are high in some
workfare
programmes.”

Lastly,
but perhaps most significantly, the report
stated:

“Workfare
is least effective for individuals with multiple barriers to
work”

who

“often
find it difficult to meet obligations…This can lead to sanctions
and, in the most extreme cases, the complete withdrawal of benefits
that leaves some individuals with no work and no
income.”

I
am keen to ask the Minister about the Government’s thinking and
how subsection (3)(e) should be applied in the new system. In the light
of the evidence, how does he plan to use workfare, and to what extent
does he see the provision being applicable to individuals with those
multiple barriers, who are picked out in that
evidence?

2.45
pm

Chris
Grayling: The shadow Minister made points in relation to
two areas. Let me take those in turn. First, the work-focused,
health-related activities are known in the Department as the WFHRAs.
The reason we took the decision that we did was because at the time
there was a genuine issue about the ability to deliver them, but most
particularly it was because we believed that the WFHRAs would be best
delivered by the Work programme providers as part of their own
induction process for someone being referred to the Work programme. Our
fear was that the WFHRAs would tend to be used for people moving off
ESA or incapacity benefit as the ones with the prime issues to be
addressed.

We
expect everyone who is referred to the Work programme to be triaged at
the start and to undergo a detailed assessment with the Work programme
provider. We envisage the Work programme providers themselves doing a
lot of the things that were envisaged to take place within the Work
programme environment. It seemed illogical to have a parallel process
in which, from this summer, we would effectively be saying to people,
“You will be going to the Work programme and you will go through
a detailed assessment when you arrive, but before you get there we will
do another assessment that will sit between your work capability
assessment and your arrival on the Work programme.” The reason
why we made the change was no more and no less than
that.

A
detailed assessment of someone’s potential may not always need
to be done by a medical person; sometimes, it may need to be and, in
those cases, I envisage that the Work programme providers will have a
significant amount of medical or related expertise in their teams. I do
not know if the right hon. Gentleman has been to New York to see some
of the work there. In centres that cater for its equivalent of our
incapacity benefit and employment and support allowance clients there
is a greater intensity of support, including a degree of condition
management support. I expect some of that to be replicated within Work
programme
networks.

It
seemed logical not to duplicate the process, and that was the reason
for the change. We have left the powers in, because it seemed sensible
to do so for the

Column number: 418

future and in relation to the rules applying to Work programme
providers. It is necessary to have the powers set out in the Bill but,
operationally, it seemed foolish for there to be
duplication.

On
workfare, the only programmes that we have set out so far are the
short-term placements in mandatory work activity. The origin of that
concept was in a lengthy consultation that we undertook last summer
with front-line staff in Jobcentre Plus, who were asked about existing
support networks and the rules and regimes that surround their work.
The one consistent message that came back was that advisers want to
have the opportunity to help jobseekers who become detached from the
process, perhaps through a loss of confidence. Anyone who has been
unemployed knows that after a few weeks people become fed up and
depressed, and quickly lose familiarity with the working environment.
Members of Jobcentre Plus teams work with people who would benefit from
getting back into that working environment for a period of time, and
that is why we have introduced the provisions on mandatory
work
activity.

We
have not yet brought forward any other proposals for workfare, but
there are potential options for us to consider. There is also the
question of what happens to people after they have been through the
Work programme. I absolutely hear what the right hon. Gentleman has
said about the experience elsewhere. The advantage of a workfare-type
activity, structured in the right way, for someone with multiple needs
is that the alternative is for them to sit and do nothing for
prolonged—and unacceptably
long—periods.

There
are clearly many people in the labour market who are a long way away
from the workplace. The right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues in
government, the former Secretary of State James Purnell in particular,
were keen to pursue the concept of getting long-term claimants with
difficulties to do things at least to bring them into an environment in
which they could do something positive and constructive with their life
and where they could receive guidance, help and support that might in
time bring them back closer to the
workplace.

We
certainly do not regard the sort of longer term workfare programmes
that have been tried in other countries as a punishment vehicle within
the system. They have the potential in some circumstances to offer a
valuable additional developmental element to the support that we
provide to people, but as yet we have not brought forward any such
proposals. It is sensible to have the powers in the Bill so that we can
deliver a variety of options to help people to get closer to the
workplace. At the moment, however, our focus is on the mandatory work
activity programme for jobseekers which, as the right hon. Gentleman
knows, is due to be rolled out
shortly.

Clause
17

Work
search
requirement

‘, which shall include
consideration of the length and expense of the claimant’s
travel’.

Column number: 419

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 74, in
clause 18, page 9, line 1, after
‘locations’,
insert

‘, which shall include
consideration of the length and expense of the claimant’s
travel’.

Stephen
Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for the information
that he has just given the
Committee.

Amendment
73 is intended to broaden, or at least to clarify, the limitations on
the requirement for people to search for work, so that undue time and
expense might be avoided. I am particularly interested in the position,
which we discussed a few minutes ago, of people who are required to
search for a new job when they already have one. It clearly would not
make sense to force people to move to a different job for higher pay if
they incurred more than the difference in extra travel costs. It would
make sense to the Exchequer because the cost to the Exchequer would be
reduced, but it would be unreasonable to require somebody to change
their job if they saw no benefit to themselves. Will the Minister
assure us that that will not happen even though it might save money for
the Government, and that the cost and expense of the travel that would
be required to take up “work in particular locations”, as
stated in subsection (5)(c), would be taken in to account
before imposing any such
requirement?

Chris
Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important
point, so let me seek to reassure him. He knows that rules in Jobcentre
Plus define what is and what is not reasonable, and they include issues
such as travel time to work and the logistics for somebody’s
life if, for example, they have a caring responsibility. We would
certainly not instruct Jobcentre Plus staff to sanction somebody for
not applying for a job that would leave them worse off as a result of
moving back into work. That would undermine the principles behind this
measure. I do not think that it is something that needs to be written
into primary legislation, but I can certainly give him an assurance
that we would not issue guidance that said
otherwise.

Stephen
Timms: Does the Minister accept that the considerations
are a bit different for somebody who is already in work and might be
required to move to a better paid job in the way in which we discussed
earlier? Will he also build on the point that he has already made, and
accept that it would not be reasonable to require somebody to move to a
different, better paid job, if their take-home pay did not go up
because the difference was consumed by higher travel
costs?

Chris
Grayling: That would be entirely reasonable, and I would
be very comfortable about saying to Jobcentre Plus staff, who are
seeking to impose conditionality on people in part-time work who might
move to full-time work, that they have to take a reasonable approach to
that. If circumstances dictated that somebody would be worse off as a
result, then applying conditionality would go against the principles of
the universal credit. It would not be our intention to force somebody
to change jobs to something that would leave them worse off. I hope
that that provides the right hon. Gentleman with the reassurance that
he needs.

Column number: 420

Stephen
Timms: I am grateful for that reassurance. I beg to ask
leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.

Clause
17 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
18

Work
Availability
Requirement

Amendment
30 deals with the new in-work conditionality being proposed by the
Government. In the past, when someone started work, obligations imposed
on them by the benefit system came to an end. Under this Bill, that
will no longer be the case. A person can still be required to meet
conditions imposed by the jobcentre to increase their income.
Potentially, that is a much more nannying regime than has been in place
before with—to borrow language favoured by some of the
newspapers that support the Government—snoopers from the civil
service checking up on people’s hours and their pay and ordering
them to change jobs if they do not think that they are earning enough.
That is not language that I would use, Mr Gray, but you understand my
drift.

Sarah
Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con): That is one
interpretation of it, but I see a lot of people in my constituency who
really want to go back to work and to improve their chances. They may
have taken seasonal employment. A lot of people in agricultural areas
take low-paid seasonal work. They feel pretty written off at the
moment. Jobcentre Plus can tick the box and say that that person has
got a job. People appreciate work-focused interviews and knowing that
somebody is looking out for them and offering support to improve their
job
prospects.

3
pm

Stephen
Timms: The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and there are
certainly ways that such a provision could be helpful. She will accept,
however, that it will depend on how it is done and that some people
might be pretty aggrieved at being required to change their jobs in
some circumstances, depending on their other commitments and
obligations.

Will the
Minister tell us a little more about how he envisages the legislation
will work? The amendment would remove the obligation on someone to
change job. Quite a new feature of the system is being introduced, and
I am keen to know, as is the Committee, how the Minister intends that
new power to be used by Jobcentre Plus and what constraints he expects
to impose to avoid what in some circumstances could be an unwelcome and
undesirable intervention by the jobcentre.

Chris
Grayling: The key point to add to my earlier comments
about the philosophy behind the approach is that the automated system
that we are introducing to deliver universal credit will provide
real-time monitoring of income and enable us to adapt universal credit
payments accordingly. The snoopers’ charter—those are the
hypothetical words of a third-party newspaper, not of the right hon.
Gentleman—would not apply because, by definition, to make
universal credit payments,

Column number: 421

to ensure that people can move seamlessly into and out of work and to
respond quickly to changes in circumstances, the system will enable us
to track what people are earning and set the appropriate amount of
universal credit for them to receive.

Ian
Swales: The rewards of work are not always entirely about
money; they are sometimes to do with training and career prospects.
Could a younger person in a job with good career prospects get caught
by the measure? For example, in North Yorkshire, some of the best paid
work is in the bacon factory at Malton, although that work has no
career prospects. Will jobcentres be cognisant of such flexibility when
considering longer-term situations, rather than instantaneous
earnings?

Chris
Grayling: Absolutely. I will give the hon. Gentleman a
practical example. Suppose an unemployed young person who has been out
of work for a few months goes through our new work experience programme
and, as a result, succeeds in getting an apprenticeship. In one or two
places, we are beginning to see the first apprenticeships to result
from that programme. An apprenticeship is an 18-month, two-year or
three-year programme, and Jobcentre Plus would have no intention of
intervening to say that the person must resign their apprenticeship to
work in the bacon factory. That would be crazy, and we would not
countenance such a situation.

The Bill is
aimed more at the situations that I described to the hon. Member for
Nottingham South. I mentioned the case of someone with a
disability—perhaps someone who has been in an accident or
suffered a chronic disease—making a first return to the
workplace. That is a step-by-step process. They get back into the
workplace and understand what they can do. As they build confidence and
get back into a daily working habit, they might realise that they have
the capability to do more. The Bill is about nudging them along to do
more.

Stephen
Timms: The Minister said that we should not talk about a
snoopers’ charter, but he said that jobcentre staff will track
people’s earnings. I understand the use of real-time PAYE data
for calculating universal credit, but to say that that information will
go also to jobcentre staff to track people’s earnings and see
whether they ought be encouraged to earn a bit more sounds as though he
is envisaging quite an intrusive arrangement.

Chris
Grayling: The right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what
I was saying. We do not need to send someone round to spy on the pay
cheque. We will be aware over a period of time, and when the jobcentre
adviser sits down with someone after six months to talk about their
situation, they will be able to look at their benefit history, as they
can today. We will not be able to track income in between times and
watch over someone if they do not earn a certain amount and haul them
back in. This is about looking at their circumstances and the amount of
universal credit that they receive and about booking a work-focused
interview, for example, in six months’ time, to come back to
talk about how they are getting on and how they have progressed. There
is no intention of having a snooper’s charter—either
electronic or otherwise—in between times to monitor their
income, relay that back to the adviser and haul them in for an
interview to get them to increase their
hours.

Column number: 422

Stephen
Timms: Is the Minister confirming that jobcentre advisers
will have access to real-time PAYE
data?

Chris
Grayling: No, I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am
suggesting that Jobcentre Plus advisers will know when the six-month
interview comes along what universal credit someone is receiving. That
is my expectation. Today, the adviser is aware of what benefit someone
receives and can discuss their needs—how otherwise could they
discuss child care, for example? How could they discuss an
individual’s circumstances? When the adviser sits down to talk
to that person, I would expect them to have an idea of how many hours
they work and what universal credit they receive. We will not have a
real-time flow of data from the adviser’s desk top, so that they
can track someone they have been working with over a period of
time.

We are trying
to create a system that supports and guides people for every step up
the ladder that we can help them with, into longer-term, more sustained
employment. This is not about taking that process into full-time,
well-paid work. We are not considering trying to track someone who is
paid £20,000 a year and persuading them to earn £21,000 a
year. This is all about helping those who are taking the first few
steps into the workplace, as a lone parent, as someone who has been
long-term unemployed, as someone who is doing a mini-job to get
themselves re-established in the labour market or as someone who is
overcoming a disability to move back into the workplace. In those
circumstances, we aim to put in place a structure that both supports
them and nudges them on the way.

Stephen
Timms: I am grateful for that explanation. I still feel
some alarm at what precisely is envisaged here, but I do not intend to
press the amendment to a vote, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw
it.

‘(e) the
Claimant having guaranteed and predictable access to high quality,
flexible and affordable child care acceptable to the parent and child
or
children.’

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 52, in
clause 24, page 11, line 44, at
end insert—

‘(9) Regulations
must make provision to secure that in prescribed circumstances where a
claimant has caring responsibilities for children under the age of 16,
the Secretary of State must not impose requirements under this Part
which would significantly interfere with the claimant’s ability
to discharge those responsibilities. No regulations in this Part shall
supersede the provisions set out in The Jobseeker’s Allowance
(Lone Parents) (Availability for Work) Regulations 2010 or The Social
Security (Lone Parents and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2008,
Clause
11.’

Anas
Sarwar: We had a lengthy discussion this morning about
child care costs. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham made a
lengthy contribution to the debate, so hon. Members will be pleased to
know that I do not intend to speak for a long time. The
amendment—alongside amendment 41, which will be debated under
clause 26—

Column number: 423

aims to ensure that it is recognised that limitations in the work
available to claimants include a lack of suitable child care.

The
Government have repeatedly made the point that the main purpose of
their welfare reform proposals is to make work pay. The Secretary of
State for Work and Pensions has stated on several occasions that the
Government reforms mean that people will always be better off in work
than out of work. However, one of the main problems with the Bill
relates to access to suitable child care, which makes it difficult for
households to tell whether they will be better off in work. Some
480,000 families currently receive support for their child care costs
through tax credits, and 64% of them are single parents.

A report by
the Scottish Parliament’s Local Government and Communities
Committee, published in January 2009, found that the greatest barrier
to entering the labour market for those who were in economically active
age groups and did not have health problems was undoubtedly child care.
A briefing paper produced by Oxfam highlights the problems with the
following quote from a young woman called Anne Marie, who
coincidentally comes from the great city of Glasgow. It says:

“Child
care is a big barrier. You are giving your child to a stranger and
paying them a full time wage to look after your kids. But if you are on
the minimum wage, the person looking after your kids is earning more
than you. How do you work that one
out?”

Unfortunately,
that question is being asked by a number of households across the
country.

By not
indicating how child care costs will be covered under the new universal
credit, the Government are creating even more uncertainty at a time
when most people are unclear what the future holds for them and their
families. I appreciate that the Secretary of State for Work and
Pensions said during oral questions last week that child care support
would be provided as part of universal credit, and I appreciate that
the Minister made comments this morning to a similar effect. As yet,
however, we still do not have a clear indication of the
details.

We have no
details of how support for child care costs will be included in
universal credit. We do not know the proportion of the cost that will
be covered by universal credit, or whether there will be support for
those working less than 16 hours, as well as for those working over
that threshold, nor how the payments will be made and to whom. Until
there is more information on how much support will be provided for
child care costs, households will find it impossible to assess whether
universal credit will mean that it is worth being in work and whether
it pays to be in work rather than out of work.

I have a
couple of questions for the Minister. First, does he accept that the
quality and availability of child care is a barrier to employment?
Secondly, what measures will he take to ensure that parents are better
off in work than out of work and that they have access not only to a
certain level of child care but to quality child care throughout the
country?

Stephen
Timms: My hon. Friend makes a strong case. I should add
that existing regulations have carefully defined the requirements that
it is appropriate to place

Column number: 424

on lone parents without preventing them from discharging their child
care responsibilities. My reason for tabling amendment 52 is that I
hope that the Minister will confirm that he does not intend to override
those safeguards in the regulations that he will make under the
clause.

The amendment
refers to two specific regulations. I shall quote the explanatory notes
for each, the first of which states:

“It is
normally a condition of entitlement to jobseeker’s allowance
that claimants are willing and able to take up employment of at least
40 hours per week, but regulation 13A provides for an easement in the
case of lone parents to whom the new provision applies. They will be
able to restrict their availability for employment to the
child’s normal school
hours.”

Will
the Minister confirm that that is the Government’s intention in
the regulations to be made under the clause?

The
explanatory note for the second statutory instrument explains
that

“Regulation 11
makes various amendments to the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations
concerning good cause for refusing or failing to carry out a
jobseeker’s direction, or to apply for or accept employment to
which a jobseeker has been referred by an employment officer, by
setting out the circumstances in which child care expenses must be
taken into account. Those circumstances relate to where the person
necessarily incurs, or would incur, unreasonable child care expenses as
the result of the employment or direction. Regulation 11 also provides
that for the purposes of determining good cause the availability and
suitability of child care must be taken into account when considering
whether a claimant’s caring responsibilities for a child make it
unreasonable for the person to undertake a particular employment or
carry out the jobseeker’s direction. It further provides that
those matters must also be considered in relation to just cause for
voluntarily leaving
employment.”

I
simply seek the Minister’s reassurance that the regulatory
safeguards will be carried over into the new
measure.

Chris
Grayling: I should like to reassure both hon. Members, and
I shall address their comments in turn.

We agree that
it is important to balance any requirement to be available for work
with a claimant’s child care needs. The amendment raises the
concern that we will not take those needs into account, but I give the
Committee a clear undertaking that that is not the case. As the right
hon. Member for East Ham said, there are already specific limitations
on the requirements that can be imposed on parents to allow them to
care for their children. We do not intend to change that.

No lone
parent will be required to look for or to be available for work if the
youngest child is below school age. If the child is under five, we will
ask lone parents only to attend work-focused interviews. They will, of
course, be able to volunteer before then for back-to-work support
should they wish to do so. We are also making provision for some lone
parents with children under the age of five to attend the access to
work programme, but that will be purely their choice; it is not
something that is mandated by us. If the child is five or over, parents
who are capable of work will be required to look for and take up
employment, but we shall ensure that the requirements are limited to
take account of child care needs.

Clause 18
will give the Secretary of State the power to set limitations on work
availability requirements, and subsection (4)(d) makes clear that that
can include restrictions to work

“for a certain
number of hours or at particular times”.

Column number: 425

Regulations will specify
that a lone or nominated parent of a child under the age of 13 may
limit their availability to work to their child’s normal school
hours. We therefore intend to apply clear safeguards to ensure that
child care needs are properly reflected in a claimant’s work
availability requirement. That is important. It is not our intention to
make lone parents—mums bringing up young kids—go out to
work at times that make it impossible to do the things that their kids
want, which is for their mum to drop them off at school in the morning
and so
on.

3.15
pm

We
will take a case-by-case approach to children over the age of 13,
because the needs of that age group differ, depending on factors such
as the maturity of the child. Any of us with kids will know from them
and their friends that there are huge differences. Some children are
perfectly mature and utterly untouched and untrammelled by being
latchkey kids at the age of 13; but for others, there are real issues
and a need for parental involvement and responsibility. We will deal
with each circumstance on a case-by-case
basis.

If
child care is still needed to help claimants meet work availability
requirements in, for example, the school holidays, advisers will work
with parents to help them identify the child care available. Indeed, we
already have very good expertise to do that among our lone parent
advisers in Jobcentre Plus. The right hon. Member for East Ham is right
that it is necessary to ensure that good child care is available. This
Administration take the view—as did his party when in
government—that it is always necessary to take what steps we
sensibly can to encourage the availability of good child care
provision. For example, we currently refer claimants to the local
family information service, and we hold information about where people
can go to access child care.

The right
hon. Gentleman will know, however, that many parents make their own
arrangements for holiday child care. Returning to my point about
informal child care, I am not in any way suggesting that it is a
statutory or policy alternative, but many people find it much easier
and choose to make arrangements among themselves for holiday times. We
are therefore reluctant to set in stone legislative frameworks, but we
recognise and give guidance to our staff that they should work with
claimants to try to find the best support available for children.
School holidays are more of a headache than term times, although
parents are off on leave at certain times of year
anyway.

Amendment
38 stresses that child care must be acceptable to the parent and the
child. We agree with the principle behind that. It is not and will not
be our policy to require parents to take up child care or to assume
that they can take up any available place. It is for a parent to decide
whether a child care place is acceptable. However, we must have the
ability to check that, when a claimant turns down child care, they are
acting responsibly. We do not want that to become an excuse for not
working, which is why we have to be careful about how the legislation
is framed. Where an adviser feels that a parent is not acting
reasonably, they do not have to take that into account when deciding
the extent of any limitation on a work availability requirement.
Failure to meet that requirement—failure to take up a job offer
if child care is the excuse—may result in a reference to a

Column number: 426

decision maker for a sanction, but only in circumstances in which the
adviser feels that the system is being abused and that there is no
genuine reason for the decision
taken.

The
regulations mentioned in amendment 52 provide that a lack of suitable
and affordable child care can be considered good cause for leaving a
job, not taking up a job or failing to meet a jobseeker’s
direction. Once universal credit is introduced, the availability of
suitable child care may be considered a relevant factor when
determining whether a claimant has good reason for such a failure. For
example, if child care costs mean that taking up a new job would amount
to an unreasonably high proportion of a claimant’s pay, the
claimant may cite good reason for not accepting or applying for a job.
The right hon. Gentleman made that point in relation to transport a few
moments
ago.

We
think that the balance is fair and that it does not need to be written
into primary legislation. This is the application of common sense on
the ground. There are already clear rules within Jobcentre plus, for
example, for what does or does not constitute a reasonable job offer
given someone’s circumstances. We share the aspirations of the
right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party. There is no division on this
issue in the Committee. I hope that Opposition Members will take that
as sufficient reassurance not to press the amendment to a
vote.

Anas
Sarwar: I thank the Minister for his detailed reply, and I
apologise if any hon. Member was seeking to intervene just as I closed
my remarks. Although we all need to see the plans in action, I am
reassured by what the Minister said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.

Clause
18 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
19

In
the light of the Minister’s comprehensive remarks on clause 18,
many of the issues that I was seeking to investigate under this clause
and clauses 20 to 22 have been well addressed by the absolute clarity
that he gave us about what will happen to parents of children at the
specific ages. It has been extremely helpful to have explanations about
what will happen up to age 13 and thereafter to know that there will
remain a degree of flexibility and discretion beyond that. That has
been very useful and has considerably clarified many of the points that
I might have
raised.

I
should therefore be grateful if the Minister could reassure me on one
point. We will now be in a situation where JSA conditionality will come
in at age five—a two-year reduction on what was proposed by the
previous Government in their Welfare Reform Act 2009. Conservative and
Liberal Democrat Members suggested on Report that no financial
sanctions should be imposed

Column number: 427

on parents of a child aged under five and Lord Freud moved an amendment
in the other place to state that nothing should cause any financial
sanction to be imposed in the case of a single parent of a child under
the age of five. I do not need to rehearse all the different
circumstances that the Minister has helpfully taken us through, but
does the position that was held by the noble Lord, who is now a
Minister in the Dept, remain the Government’s position in
relation to any obligations that they may be required to fulfil in
subsequent clauses? I look forward to hearing what he has to
say.

Chris
Grayling: Let me start by saying that I am grateful for
the hon. Lady’s comments. My view was that it was not
appropriate to increase the age from one, or at least to put the
potential to vary it in regulations. I take the view that the lone
parent or the parent of a child under one should not be subject to any
kind of job search requirements. We have given due consideration to the
points she raised. We have listened quite carefully to the arguments
that were articulated by the previous Administration. I do not want to
see lone parents of young children sanctioned very often. There are
obligations in the welfare system in return for the receipt of income
support. Particularly as the children get closer to the age of five and
are likely to be going to school there should be an obligation to at
least engage with the system.

Any lone
parent in that situation who faces any kind of financial sanction is
certainly entitled to receive hardship payments. We have also looked at
whether other forms of sanction may be appropriate, for example, the
requirement to attend a work-focused interview at a Sure Start centre.
At the moment we have not decided to change the policy we inherited
from the previous Administration. It is something that I envisage
should be administered only very lightly. It is something that the
Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the
Member for Basingstoke (Maria Miller) feels very strongly about. We
listened quite carefully to the arguments articulated by the previous
Administration and have, for now at least, decided not to change the
situation.

Kate
Green: I am grateful for that clarification and the
Minister’s assurance that he expects that financial sanctions
would be imposed only very rarely and with careful thought about the
circumstances. Clearly financial sanctions are not the only penalty
that is available to the Government. They could impose activity
sanctions, such as a requirement to attend interviews more frequently
or undertake other work preparation or work-related activities. We
understand that the Government are promising a graduated approach, with
early sanctions to precede the financial ones that may come down the
line, and that would be right for us to support.

I am
concerned that lone parents with the sole responsibility for a young
child could be put in a position where a meagre budget with which they
support that child could be cut further. I note what the Minister has
said about hardship payments, on which we will no doubt have a further
debate later on. I am grateful for his assurances this afternoon to
ensure that any financial sanction on parents of young children are
imposed with incredibly great caution and with the impact on those

Column number: 428

children given the fullest consideration. It is vital that sanctions are
imposed within the context of the best interests of the child in the
household. The Minister’s assurances have been welcome, and on
that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment, but with a large
note of caution
attached.

The
Chair: For the sake of correctness, the Member proposing
the amendment seeks leave of the Committee to withdraw the
amendment.

Kate
Green: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.

Stephen
Timms: I beg to move amendment 36, in
clause 19, page 9, line 16, at
end insert

‘,
which shall include that the claimant is either receiving, recovering
from, or expected within 6 months to receive treatment with
chemotherapy or
radiotherapy’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 32, in
clause 19, page 9, line 16, at
end
insert—

‘(e)
the claimant is receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, is recovering
from that treatment or is likely to receive such treatment within 6
months.’.

Amendment
37, in
clause 56, page 40, line 35, at
end insert

‘,
which shall include that the claimant is either receiving, recovering
from, or expected within 6 months to receive treatment with
chemotherapy or
radiotherapy’.

Amendment
33, in
clause 56, page 40, line 35, at
end
insert—

‘(e)
the claimant is receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy, is recovering
from that treatment or is likely to receive such treatment within 6
months.’.

Stephen
Timms: Probably all members of the Committee have received
representations from Macmillan Cancer Support, on behalf of 30 cancer
charities, for a change to the current treatment of cancer patients in
employment and support allowance. The amendments that we have tabled
address that point, as does the similar one tabled by the hon. Member
for Meon Valley.

The concern
is that people receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy orally are
currently treated by ESA less thoughtfully than people who are treated
through injections, when people receiving oral treatment could have
symptoms that are just as bad as those who are being treated
intravenously. I asked the Minister in a written question some weeks
ago why someone receiving oral chemotherapy who applies for ESA is
placed in the work-related activity group, and so subject to
obligations set out in the Bill, when a person receiving non-oral
chemotherapy is placed in the support group, and so is exempt from the
obligations and incidentally receives a rather higher payment in
benefits. The Minister, in his answer to me,
said:

“The
purpose of this policy is that those experiencing the most severe
functional limitations as a result of cancer treatment are
automatically entitled to enter the Support
Group”—[Official Report, 2 February 2011; Vol.
522, c.
831W.].

However,
the point of the cancer charities is that the functional limitations
suffered by patients of oral chemotherapy and radiotherapy can be just
as severe, and logically they should be treated in the same
way.

Column number: 429

The Secretary
of State commented on the issue on Second Reading when he was asked
about it. He
asserted:

“It
is not as debilitating.”—[Official Report, 9 March
2011; Vol. 524, c.
920.]

However,
that is certainly not the view of the cancer charities. I note that
Professor Harrington has commented on the matter as well. He said that
oral chemotherapy and
radiotherapy

“can
sometimes be equally as
debilitating”,

contradicting
the Secretary of State’s claim.

The matter is
becoming increasingly important because the percentage of oral
treatment is rising. Macmillan draws to our attention the statistics
from the United States where, in 2007, 10% of cancer chemotherapy
treatment was administered orally. It is expected that, by 2013, that
proportion will rise to 25%. Macmillan tells us that it expects a
similar increase in the application of oral treatment for cancer
patients in the UK. Will the Minister accept that the system needs to
be updated in light of the growing application of oral treatments, and
the clear evidence that that is not necessarily any less debilitating
than the
alternative?

3.30
pm

George
Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr Gray, and to be discussing my first ever
amendment—although that is perhaps rather less exciting for
everyone else.

I am grateful
to the shadow Minister for his comments. As is clear from the list of
amendments, we have both tabled a very similar amendment. I have very
little to add to what he said, except for pointing out one or two extra
details for the Minister and asking him to respond to one or two of my
comments. I have a bit of extra detail on one or two of the oral
therapies. A specific example is fludarabine, which is commonly used
for a number of cancers. That drug has the effect of immunosuppression,
allowing a range of diseases to take hold in some of those taking the
therapy—for example, pneumonia and other things. It causes
nausea, diarrhoea and considerable fatigue. A second treatment that
Macmillan was keen to put on the record is capecitabine. Again, that is
increasingly used across the treatments for cancer. Considerable
fatigue can result from taking that drug and it can be extremely
debilitating, particularly if someone is in the work-related activity
group and is required to attend sessions to seek education and to
explore work possibilities and so on.

That is at
the core of the issue. As the shadow Minister mentioned, the amount of
extra money available to someone if they are put in the support group
is only £5.45 per week. As always, I am mindful that the my hon.
Friend the Member for Dover will be interested in the amount that it
will cost. The charities estimate that around 2,500 people will end up
in a support group who might otherwise have ended up in the
work-related activity group. At £5.45 a week, that is about
£640,000 a year, which is not an enormous amount of money for
any Government.

I further
suggest that if people are not required to attend meetings, there may
even be some savings that will make the amount the Government have to
invest even less. However, it is not about the money; it is about the
fact that attending some of those meetings can be further debilitating
and can be very challenging for

Column number: 430

people who are on oral chemotherapy. The very nature of chemotherapy is
changing. There is a migration from intravenous to oral chemotherapy.
Indeed, some of the chemotherapies that are prescribed can be taken
either intravenously or orally. Clearly, many patients opt for the oral
version, even if it has slightly worse consequences, so that they do
not have to go through the process of being injected every
day.

Chris
Grayling: There is a uniformity of view from all parties
on that matter, and the subject is of concern and on our minds. We are
seeking to do the right thing about the issue. I pray in our defence
the decision to implement the internal review into the work capability
assessment carried out by the previous Administration. One of the key
reasons for doing that was to ensure that people in between courses of
chemotherapy were also placed in the support group, given the fact that
those going through chemotherapy cannot possibly be expected to work in
a conventional
setting.

The
issue arises over the nature of the cancer treatment. I have no doubt
that some forms of oral chemotherapy make it impossible for an
individual to work and that that should require them to be put into a
support group. The only issue is that there are a wide variety of
treatments. Some are extremely debilitating and some are less so. The
same applies to new techniques that enable chemotherapy to take place
in a targeted way, with new equipment that allows treatment to be done
over a few minutes, rather than the extended period that has been the
case up to now. There are a mixture of oral treatments, some of which
have a low impact on the individual and that are designed to treat
relatively—in so far as these things can ever be—lesser
outbreaks of cancer as opposed to the more serious treatments. To date,
we have formed the view that oral chemotherapy is not yet something to
which it is possible to apply a one-size-fits-all approach in terms of
the rules applying to the work capability assessment and the decision
whether to put people into the support
group.

Ian
Swales: As a supporting point—I speak from personal
experience—nobody has talked about the psychological effects of
cancer treatment. Whatever the physical effects, some of
which my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley graphically described,
somebody undergoing chemotherapy might not be psychologically okay to
go through some of the work-related procedures. That is another comment
in support of the amendment.

Chris
Grayling: That is also an entirely fair point. The right
hon. Member for East Ham is right that Professor Harrington raised
concerns about the issue, although he used the phrase “can
sometimes” as opposed to “does always”. We have
asked Professor Harrington if he will consider the issue specifically
and make recommendations. Money is genuinely not the issue here. If it
is the right thing to do to put all chemotherapy patients into the
support group, I am perfectly happy to do so.

At the same
time, I am instinctively reluctant, on any matter of health problems or
disability, to use a one-size-fits-all approach that says that anybody
in a particular group automatically ends up in a particular place. My
reluctance has more to do with the fact that circumstances vary. I want
the system to be responsive to those varying circumstances. My message
to all those who have expressed

Column number: 431

concerns is that the Government have an open mind and are willing to
make changes if we feel that it is appropriate to do so. We have taken
steps to ask that question by asking Professor Harrington to work with
Macmillan to identify the right approach.

Sheila
Gilmore: The claimant is obliged to report any change in
circumstances, so someone receiving such a form of therapy who is
placed in the support group and becomes much better will presumably
have an obligation to report that. Also, regular assessments are built
into the system; indeed, many of my constituents have been assessed
several times in a year. Given that, is there really any major
disadvantage to placing people who are receiving such forms of therapy
within the support group?

Chris
Grayling: There may not be. My message is that we have
asked Professor Harrington to consider the issue for us and to work
with Macmillan. Not all treatments have the same effect; some have much
less effect than others. As I have said clearly today, if Professor
Harrington comes back and says, “Put everyone who is going
through any form of chemotherapy into the support group,” we
will.

Stephen
Timms: When does the Minister expect to receive that
advice from Professor Harrington?

Chris
Grayling: We have asked him to come back in the relatively
near future. I cannot put an exact time frame on it, as it is down to
him to make recommendations to us, but I will encourage him to give us
a view sooner rather than later so that if changes are needed, we can
progress them. I have said all along that we want the work capability
assessment process to involve ongoing improvement. If changes need to
be made, we will make them as quickly as possible. One reason why I did
not leave Professor Harrington to wait a year before his second review
was so that we could continue to review the issues. I give the
Committee an undertaking that if his advice is that we should do this,
we will. I hope that on that basis, the Committee will allow him to
make his recommendation and suggest an approach to us. I am happy to
commit to adopting that approach.

Stephen
Timms: I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful
response. He says that he does not support a one-size-fits-all
approach, but that is the problem with the current arrangement:
everybody who receives oral chemotherapy, irrespective of its effects,
is placed in the work-related activity group rather than the support
group. However, the Committee will have been encouraged by what he said
about his willingness to implement Professor Harrington’s
recommendations. I hope that they will be put to him within the next
couple of months rather than later.

Chris
Graylingindicated
assent.

Stephen
Timms: I am encouraged by the Minister’s nodding.
On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.

Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.

Column number: 432

Stephen
Timms: This has been an interesting and useful debate. I
want to raise one other set of issues about clause 19. It arises from
the note on regulations that was circulated to us yesterday evening,
because that explains which people will be excluded from work-related
requirements—this clause deals with those claimants who will be
subject to no work-related requirements. The note on regulations
explains that people will be excluded from these requirements if
their,

“working
hours, earnings, amount of universal credit payable or all three, are
above a certain level …The threshold will be set at least as
high as the point people lose entitlement to current out of work
benefits”.

But it also says that
it will be a household threshold, not an individual threshold and it
concludes:

“We
want to consider the options
carefully”.

That
raises a whole range of questions in my mind. Taking the Minister back
to the exchange we had a little while ago about whether jobcentre
advisers will have access to real-time PAYE data, if a threshold is set
on the basis of earnings, that implies that the jobcentre is expected
to know what people earn. It also suggests, because of the reference to
working hours, that jobcentre advisers will know how many hours people
are working. It
adds,

“amount
of universal credit
payable”

and
the Minister has perfectly fairly pointed out to the Committee that one
would expect the jobcentre to know how much universal credit people are
receiving, but it is more of interest—or more of a
surprise—that jobcentre advisers are supposed to know how many
hours people are working and also their
earnings.

The
note on these regulations says that these regulations, when they have
been drawn up—and there is clearly a lot of work still to be
done before they are concluded—will be subject to the negative
procedure. I put it to the Minister that, surely, in an area such as
this, where there is quite a lot at stake—the note on these
regulations tells us very frankly that we do not know how to do this
yet, but this is the kind of area we are looking at—a regulation
such as this should be subject to the affirmative procedure, so that
Members of the House get the opportunity to see precisely what these
arrangements are going to be, or at least a bit more precision than we
have at the moment about how the arrangements will apply. What will be
the working hours beyond which people will not be subject to
work-related requirements? What will be the level of earnings beyond
which they will not be subject to work-related requirements? Also, how
will the household threshold work? The implication seems to be that, if
two members of a couple work, between them, above a certain number of
hours, they will both be exempted from work-related
requirements.

This
seems to me to open up a whole new area, potentially, of intrusiveness
on the part of the jobcentre into people’s lives. It will
require information in the jobcentre which has not been available in
the past. I am reassured by the comment in the note on regulations
that

“We
want to consider the options carefully”,

but I think there is a
very strong case for the Minister to come back to the House once those
options have been concluded, to enable a Committee of the House to
consider the regulations under the affirmative procedure.

Column number: 433

The
Government have indicated that they want to move away from hours rules;
it is one of the points that they have made in criticism of the current
system that the 16-hour threshold has many implications. However, this
clause and the note on regulations that the clause gives power for seem
to me to put something like the 16-hours rule back in the frame again.
We ought to know more about the Government’s intentions. I will
be grateful for anything the Minister can say this afternoon about how
he envisages these regulations working. I particularly urge the
Minister to acknowledge that this is an example of regulations that
ought to come back under the affirmative
procedure.

3.45
pm

Chris
Grayling: Let me reassure the right hon. Gentleman to some
degree. Although I will not give a definitive answer this afternoon,
the question is: at what point do we set the barrier above which we do
not seek to interfere in any way with people’s working lives,
alongside their entitlement? At what point on the ladder that I
described earlier—the ladder of moving back into
employment—are they effectively freed from a work search
requirement?

There
are a number of ways in which one could establish that point. One
obvious example would be to extrapolate the number of hours
worked—a working week, for example—against the national
minimum wage. If there was a household that had an income coming in,
and the principal earner was working 35 hours a week on the national
minimum wage, the argument could be made perfectly well that above that
level it would be unreasonable to seek to impose some kind of
conditionality that required that person to try to get a pay rise.
Equally, let us take someone at the other end of the scale, who is
working nine hours a week at the national minimum wage; it is not
unreasonable to encourage them to try to increase the number of hours
that they work, if their circumstances permit. We should not look at it
as being automatically one or the other, and we would not necessarily
need to track the hours that every individual worked. However, there is
a point at which we need to define a threshold, below which people are
still subject to an improved job search requirement and above which we
do not seek to look over their shoulder and find out what they are
doing.

What we must
establish in the next few weeks and months is where that line should be
drawn, and I am very happy to get the right hon. Gentleman’s
input and suggestions on that. My suspicion is that, in the end, it
will be a matter of some kind of combination of the elements rather
than one individual threshold, but it is a question of identifying
where the threshold should be.

Stephen
Timms: What puzzles me is how staff at Jobcentre Plus will
know the working hours of two members of a couple, and their earnings,
separately or together. It is not clear to me how that information will
be available to the staff. I can see how the information about the
amount of universal credit payable will be available to someone in
Jobcentre Plus, but I cannot see how or why the staff at Jobcentre Plus
will know what the couple’s working hours and earnings
are.

Chris
Grayling: It is not necessarily staff at Jobcentre Plus
who would monitor that information. Clearly, the staff at Jobcentre
Plus could not monitor the exact

Column number: 434

working hours on an ongoing basis. The universal credit system will show
what income someone is receiving, and it will adapt the amount of
universal credit to that income. As I have said, the mechanism that one
might conceivably use—this is the reason why it is in the
Bill—is to say that the threshold is the equivalent of a certain
number of hours multiplied by the national minimum wage; that would
provide a financial threshold above which someone is not subject to
conditionality. The right hon. Gentleman should not look at that
threshold as an attempt by us to track the number of hours worked. It
would simply be used, potentially as a reference point, in deciding
where the line should be drawn, below which conditionality would apply
and above which conditionality would not apply.

We have not
made a definitive decision about where that line should be drawn. It is
likely that it will be devised through a combination of factors.
Ultimately, once that decision is taken, the process will not be
particularly complicated. As for the affirmative procedure issue, I am
happy to go away and give that due consideration. It is not something
that needs to be decided in debate this afternoon. I understand the
point that the right hon. Gentleman makes. For his information, clause
43 sets out the process for regulations made under part 1
anyway.

I am giving
the right hon. Gentleman a hypothetical example, but if one took a
number of hours and the amount of the national minimum wage, that would
be a vehicle that would enable us to set a threshold. Together, the use
of those different elements will enable us to reach a point below which
conditionality will apply and above which it will not apply. I hope
that that gives him the answer to his
question.

Stephen
Timms: The problem with that formula is that it requires
the staff at Jobcentre Plus to know somebody’s hours and
earnings so that they can apply the threshold. The test that the
Minister suggests is not the universal credit test. Again, it is not
clear to me how the Jobcentre Plus staff will know that
information.

Chris
Grayling: I am not suggesting that this is necessarily an
individual issue. One of the challenges we have is that if we try to
work on the number of hours, somebody who is working one hour a week
for £500 an hour is clearly way out of the support network, so
we could not simply do it on the basis of the number of hours. Equally,
there must be a sensible financial threshold, above which it is
reasonable not to apply conditionality but below which it is reasonable
to say that there is further progress to be made on what the individual
is doing. The final answer will be a combination of the
two.

It
is absolutely not the case that we intend to introduce an additional
mechanism to track the number of hours worked in real time. That would
be impractical in any case. At the time of the work-focused interview,
we may sit down with someone and say, “How many hours are you
working? What is the nature of the job that you are doing?” That
is a logical conversation with an adviser. We are not seeking an
additional level of IT with a reporting structure for all hours worked.
I hope that that provides the right hon. Gentleman with a degree of
clarification and reassurance.

Column number: 435

Stephen
Timms: A final point from me: the Minister is right to
refer to clause 43, but that says that all the statutory instruments
will be subject to the negative procedure. I am grateful for his
sympathy for the suggestion, at least, that the provision should be
subject to the affirmative procedure. We may return to that point in
debate on clause
43.

Chris
Grayling: I have always found that the negative procedure
is a good way of keeping Opposition research teams on their toes,
because they have to watch out for things and pray against them. I am
listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman says. I understand
where he is coming from, and I am happy to commit to at least having a
discussion on the issue in the Department. We may not move from where
we are, but I am happy to offer that to him. In the meantime, I hope
that he understands the point that I am making, and I hope that he is
happy to accept the
clause.

Question
put and agreed
to.

Clause
19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clauses
20 to 23 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
24

Imposition
of
requirements

Stephen
Timms: I beg to move amendment 49, in
clause 24, page 11, line 21, at
end insert—

‘(1A) When
imposing requirements under this Part, the Secretary of State must
provide the claimant with a written statement detailing how the
requirement is intended to assist the claimant in securing
employment.’.

The
amendment would require people who have requirements imposed on them
under this part of the Bill to be provided with a written statement
that sets out how the requirement will help them to secure employment.
It is a probing amendment, like others we have debated this afternoon.
We all want as few people as possible out of work. All of us recognise
that securing employment is as much about motivation as anything else.
Implemented properly, I gladly recognise that the claimant commitment
set out in the clause could help people understand their
responsibilities. The written statement that would be required under
the amendment would take us a little further, by ensuring that the
individual understands why requirements have been placed on them. A
written statement is specified so that the claimant has a lasting
record to which they can refer back in the future.

The amendment
stipulates that the written statement should explain to the individual
how the requirements will assist them in securing employment. The
requirements imposed on people must not be arbitrary. The statement
would be clear on how the requirements will help. To use the example
that the hon. Member for Redcar gave, if a requirement to attend a CV
course is placed on someone, they would be given a written statement on
how that will assist them in securing employment. A device along those
lines would also encourage people to take responsibility for their
circumstances. After receiving the statement, if they were told the
purpose of what they were being asked to do, some people might feel
that they could enter into useful discussions with their adviser on how
they might meet the same objectives through alternative means. It might
lead to a creative

Column number: 436

discussion on how best that purpose can be fulfilled, and might result
in a slightly different proposal from that made in the first
instance.

If a claimant
is asked to take up a work experience placement, but is already doing
valuable voluntary work—we will discuss this later—it may
be better for their employment prospects to stick with the
volunteering, rather than giving it up to take a work placement. Once
the claimant is aware not only of the requirements being placed on
them, but the reason why those requirements are being placed on them,
it may be easier for them to discuss with their adviser how best that
aim can be achieved. A written statement could be an important step in
the right direction, and I hope the Minister will see the merit of the
amendment.

Chris
Grayling: As ever, the shadow Minister talks very sensibly
about the nature of the challenge, but I fear that on this occasion he
is being a tad bureaucratic. I am of the view, as he clearly is, that
there should be a two-way process between an adviser and a claimant.
The claimant should not be simply subject to being sent on a 13-week CV
course, to refer to what the hon. Member for Redcar said, without a
clear understanding of what needs to be
done.

All
the guidance and training that we will provide to our advisers,
particularly now that we are trying to strengthen the link between an
individual adviser and an individual claimant, will emphasise the need
to make the process constructive and collaborative. We have stripped
away many of Jobcentre Plus’s target frameworks, and we are
trying to focus the organisation on one key outcome: moving people off
benefits and into
work.

The
amendment requires advisers to set out in writing how the requirements
that a claimant must meet are intended to help them into work. The
requirements are designed with the objective of improving a
person’s chance of obtaining paid work, or more or better-paid
work. Asking advisers to write down every single thing that they decide
to recommend would be bureaucratic and time-consuming. Over a period of
time, even though little bits take a long time to add up, across the
whole Jobcentre Plus network it would cost additional full-time
employment positions to deliver that. I have seen it happen with the
work capability assessment. We looked at introducing a personalised
statement, as recommended by Professor Harrington, but there is a time
factor that brings a cost with it. Any change such as the right hon.
Gentleman’s proposal has a cost. For many requirements, such as
work search, applying for jobs or drawing up a CV, writing a statement
saying, “The reason for doing this is that it will help you move
into work” would in some cases take us to the other extreme of
being unduly
patronising.

I
assure the right hon. Gentleman that the claimant commitment will be
drawn up in discussion with the claimant. The discussion will cover
their circumstances and aspirations, and any barriers to work. The
requirements placed on them will be shaped by the nature of that
discussion. The guidance and training given to staff will tell them
that that is what the process is all
about.

The
purpose of the requirement will be fully explained as part of the
dialogue; the adviser will say, “I am sending you on an IT
booster course, because I think it will help you with the vacancies
that are available in this

Column number: 437

area.” The adviser will ensure that the claimant fully
understands their responsibilities, and I would expect an adviser to
respond to the question, “Why am I doing this?” with a
proper
explanation.

Being
clear about the purpose of the requirements is a key part of ensuring
that the claimant engages with them. If we identify something that will
help, we want the claimant to roll up their sleeves and get on with it,
rather than feeling that they are being asked to do something without
knowing
why.

If
it turns out that the claimant does not fully understand the
requirements in their claimant commitment, or how the requirements will
help them to move into work, they will always be able to contact their
adviser for clarification. Having a named adviser working with them
makes that much easier. Indeed, they can explain when things are not
working, because that could happen. One particularly important
innovation at Jobcentre Plus is that it is, where possible, moving
towards having one individual working with a
claimant.

Requiring
advisers to explain in writing how requirements will help the claimant
move into work is unnecessarily bureaucratic and an unnecessary burden.
Although I absolutely understand where the right hon. Gentleman is
coming from—I give him assurances about the guidance that we
will give to staff on how they should make the claimant commitment
work—such a move is
unnecessary.

Stephen
Timms: I think the Minister is suggesting that he feels
that my proposal would be good practice for advisers, and I hope that
the practice will become increasingly widespread, but as I have
indicated, I do not wish to press the amendment to a Division. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.

4
pm

Stephen
Timms: I beg to move amendment 50, in
clause 24, page 11, line 44, at
end insert—

‘(7) Regulations
must make provision to secure that in prescribed circumstances where a
claimant has been volunteering, the Secretary of State must not impose
prescribed requirements under this
Part.’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 51, in
clause 24, page 11, line 44, at
end insert—

‘(8) Regulations
must make provision to secure that in prescribed circumstances where a
claimant has been in education, the Secretary of State must not impose
prescribed requirements under this
Part.’.

Stephen
Timms: The two amendments seek similar goals. They would
require that, where they are already participating in valuable
activities, a claimant’s requirements ought to take that into
account. The positive activities in question are volunteering and
education, which are in amendments 50 and 51 respectively. The purpose
of requirements being placed on people should not be to punish them for
receiving benefits, but rather to help them into work. Helping people
into work can take a wide number of forms, and it is right that such
requirements are included on the face of the
Bill.

Several
interested parties, however, have raised a number of concerns about
what could happen. I was interested to see the comments of Crisis, for
example, which made

Column number: 438

the following observations about mandatory work in its written
submission to the Work and Pensions Committee. It
said:

“Perhaps
a better route would be to offer people a suitable volunteering
placement which can increase people’s confidence and motivation,
build up skills and be of benefit to the community. All placements
would however, need to be meaningful and of benefit to the individual
undertaking
them.”

Catch22
made a similar point in its evidence. The danger could be that, in
imposing a requirement, people may be moved further away from the
labour market, and amendment 50 intends to avoid that happening. Of
course, volunteering will not be beneficial in every circumstance, and
nor will education, so I would not argue for a blanket exemption from
requirements.

Ian
Swales: Will the right hon. Gentleman give
way?

Stephen
Timms: Yes, of
course.

The
Chair: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman makes his
intervention, I will point out that if one wishes to make an
intervention, the normal convention is to stand up and say so, rather
than simply holding one’s hand
up.

Ian
Swales: Does the right hon. Gentleman not see the danger
that if volunteering is excluded from the measure and such people have
no requirements placed on them, people could see long-term
volunteering, being paid by universal credit, as a kind of career
option?

Stephen
Timms: That is a danger, and I agree that that should be
avoided. Equally, however, as the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members
will know from their constituencies, volunteering can be a very
positive step back towards confidence and towards work. I have met many
people for whom that has been the case. The argument behind the
amendments is that the Government should consider the beneficial impact
of volunteering and of education, and that jobcentres should be willing
to adjust the requirements placed on individuals in the light of the
volunteering or education that they are
undertaking.

Sheila
Gilmore: One issue for people who are volunteering can be
that if requirements are placed upon them—whether that is to do
with taking up work, attending some form of work placement or anything
of that sort—it can be difficult to make a commitment to be a
volunteer. It is also difficult for the volunteer organisation if its
work is likely to be disrupted.

If people
have been able to show consistency, that is good when they come to
write their CV. There is also an issue of consistency for the
organisation that may take them on, because if the person has
volunteered to work in a charity shop every Monday morning, for
example, it is not particularly helpful for the organisation to have
people who cannot be relied upon. On that basis, it is necessary to
have a different form of requirement for people who are
volunteering.

Chris
Grayling: I share the Opposition’s view on the
importance of volunteering, and we have taken a number of steps to
encourage volunteering for people who are

Column number: 439

going through job search. We have strengthened the availability of
information about volunteering opportunities, which now appears in a
much more prominent position on the Jobcentre Plus pages on the
Directgov website. We have instructed advisers to steer claimants
towards volunteering opportunities. Most excitingly of all, we have now
formed a partnership with the Prince’s Trust to offer a
volunteers’ desk in most Jobcentre Plus offices, where it is
practical to do so, for two purposes. First, that will provide a
gateway to volunteering opportunities, and the role of the
Prince’s Trust will be to guide people into and towards other
local voluntary sector organisations that can offer volunteering
opportunities that are suited to people’s needs. Secondly,
particularly with young people, it will enable the Prince’s
Trust to do its own work with jobseekers and to offer volunteering
opportunities itself. There is no lack of commitment in Jobcentre Plus,
across the Committee or across the House about the importance of
volunteering opportunities.

My concern
about the amendments that the right hon. Member for East Ham has tabled
is that they would have the effect of limiting the work search that
goes on alongside volunteering. Alongside the added element to the
process of job search that we have brought forward—whether that
is the encouragement to get people volunteering alongside their job
search to build their skills, the work experience process, or
conditionality—there is the obligation to maintain job search
and to continue to look for work. I do not believe that we can
compromise on that, and it would not be in the interests of individuals
to do so. It would be easy for somebody to become established in a
volunteering position—to do good work in a charity shop or
similar—and to miss out on longer-term work opportunities as a
result. I am extremely reluctant to accept amendments that would
curtail the requirement to take part in work-related activity, as these
have the effect of doing.

Let me give a
practical example of how that might take effect. I can well envisage a
situation in which a major employer was moving to an area with a number
of opportunities, and a Jobcentre Plus adviser wanted to send an
individual on a particular short training course that would equip them
better to take advantage of that job opportunity when it arose. It
would not be appropriate for the person concerned to be able to say
that they would not take advantage of that because they would be
working in the charity shop next week, if that would result in their
missing out on the opportunity of building a skill that would give them
a better chance of filling that vacancy.

The guidance
that we will give, and the guidance that we are already giving, to
Jobcentre Plus advisers is that they should actively encourage
volunteering. The right hon. Member for East Ham is absolutely right to
say that it is a positive move, but what we cannot do is to say to our
advisers that they do not need to impose job search requirements and
work preparation requirements alongside that volunteering. That is the
wrong thing to do not only from the point of view of the public purse,
but, more importantly, for the individual themselves. I see
volunteering as a step back into work, and I would not want an
individual to miss such an opportunity as a
result.

Column number: 440

Stephen
Timms: I am encouraged by what the Minister is saying
about volunteering. Does he recognise that education can be helpful in
a similar way?

Chris
Grayling: Indeed it can, and we are continuing to offer
training opportunities. Jobseekers will continue to receive access to
training opportunities that are funded by the Department for Business,
Innovation and Skills. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that we
have introduced firmer rules surrounding skills conditionality because
we believe that that area is extremely important. We do not intend to
make changes, however, to allow people to spend time in long-term
courses while on benefits—that was common to his Government as
well—as we simply cannot afford to do so. Other forms of finance
are available to people who are in that position through, for example,
the student loans system.

My point
applies equally to the taking of a training course or of a volunteering
opportunity. The fact that someone is doing a two-week IT course should
not mean that they do not have to go for an interview with somebody who
might give them a job. On that basis, I fear that the amendments do not
work for the Bill, although they have highlighted an important issue.
The right hon. Gentleman has made his point eloquently, and I share it,
but I do not think that these measures represent the correct way
forward.

Stephen
Timms: I am pleased with the general sympathy that the
Minister has expressed for the intention of the amendments. I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.

Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.

Clause
24 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
25

Compliance
with
requirements

Kate
Green: I beg to move amendment 62, in
clause 25, page 12, line 4, leave
out ‘complied with or not complied’ and insert
‘engaged with or not
engaged’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 63, in
clause 25, page 12, line 6, leave
out ‘specified by’ and insert ‘agreed
with’.

Kate
Green: The amendments relate to how a claimant is to be
treated as having complied with work-related activity and work search
requirements. They make a similar contextual point as the amendments we
tabled to clause 14 on the claimant commitment, about the collaboration
and co-operation that the Minister has described as being the essence
of the adviser-claimant relationship. A claimant’s ability to
conform with requirements in the claimant commitment is a matter of
judgment and, to some degree, of the adviser’s discretion in
determining to what extent a particular expectation has been fulfilled
and to what extent there might be grounds that have put the claimant in
a position where he or she has not been able fully to meet the precise
letter of the requirements but has been willing to do so and has
clearly done everything possible to engage with the spirit of what is
sought.

Amendment
62 talks of the claimant’s engagement, rather than compliance,
with the requirements. That would offer an opportunity for a more
subtle and graded approach that would draw on the adviser’s
expertise

Column number: 441

and relationship with the claimant, and recognise that the process is
one of collaboration and co-operation to the greatest degree
possible.

Amendment
63 builds on amendment 62 by suggesting, as I argued in relation to the
claimant commitment, that simply imposing obligations on a claimant is
contrary to the intention to build the kind of co-operative,
collaborative and supportive relationship that claimants need to have
with their advisers if their chances of moving into sustainable
employment are to be maximised. Therefore, rather than the Secretary of
State specifying actions and requirements that the claimant is required
to fulfil, we propose that those actions and requirements be agreed
between the claimant and the adviser on behalf of the Secretary of
State.

There
is an unnecessary wariness on the part of the Minister to see the
relationship between the adviser and the claimant as positive and
constructive. In my many years of experience of talking both to
claimants who have gone through the Jobcentre Plus process and
Jobcentre Plus personal advisers themselves, I have learned that in
most cases we see that kind of collaborative, co-operative approach.
There is no reason whatsoever not to assume that as the norm and frame
it in the legislation, and the amendments reinforce that
point.

Chris
Grayling: I understand where the hon. Lady is coming from
and why, but I fear that we will not agree on the matter. The key issue
is that within the job search process there are obligations that the
Secretary of State places upon individuals, whether they agree with
them or not: the obligation to look for a job, the agreement to apply
for jobs, and the obligation to turn up for a certain number of
work-focused interviews and to do the fortnightly signing-on. I fear
that the amendments would water down the Secretary of State’s
ability to apply conditions.

Let me be
clear: the detail of job search must be a collaborative process, and it
must be done more thoughtfully. One reason why we have devolved funding
to the front line for Jobcentre Plus advisers is to enable them to
provide more individual support, whether that is ensuring that someone
is able to travel to an interview, ensuring that they do a particular
training course, or providing some other element of support. Our
intention is genuinely not to create a confrontational system, but
there must be a fundamental back-up when it comes to applying for jobs
that says, “You have to do this whether you like it or not.
” If people turn round and say, “I don’t want to
look for a job,” we must be able to say, “You will
therefore face consequences.” Under amendment 63, however,
conditions would apply only if a claimant has agreed a particular
action with the Secretary of State. Such a provision would simply not
be possible with regard to the requirement to look for a job, because
it would give someone ongoing unconditional access to the welfare
system.

As I keep
saying, I very much respect the view of the hon. Lady, who is very
knowledgeable, but I am afraid that this is one area in which we will
not agree.

Kate
Green: I am grateful to the Minister for his reiteration
of the collaborative approach and for the fact that he expects that to
prevail in the vast majority of cases. When we come to later clauses
relating to sanctions, we will discuss further what motivates people

Column number: 442

to participate and engage. In the context of the clause under
discussion, however, I note and welcome the Minister’s
intention. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.

Clause
26

Higher-level
sanctions

4.15
pm

Anas
Sarwar: I beg to move amendment 39, in
clause 26, page 12, line 12, at
end insert—

‘(1A) The
Secretary of State shall, before exercising their powers under
subsection (1) above, advise the Claimant of their right of appeal in
relation to any decision to impose a sanction under section 26 or
section
27.’.

The
Chair: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following:

Amendment 40,
in
clause 26, page 13, line 8, at
end insert—

‘(9) Regulations
may provide for the appeal process which will apply when a Claimant has
been informed that they will face sanctions in the event of a failure
by the Claimant which is sanctionable under this section or section
27.’.

Amendment
80, in
clause 26, page 13, line 8, at
end insert—

‘(9) Where a
claimant is sanctioned under this section, the claimant must be
provided with a written explanation of the terms of the reduction, the
reasons the reduction has been made and the claimant’s right to
appeal.’.

Amendment
55, in
clause 26, page 13, line 8, at
end insert—

‘(9) Regulations
will provide for an appeal
mechanism.’.

Amendment
56, in
clause 27, page 14, line 4, at
end insert—

‘(10)
Regulations will provide for an appeal
mechanism.’.

Amendment
83, in
clause 27, page 14, line 4, at
end insert—

‘(10) Where a
claimant is sanctioned under this section, the claimant must be
provided with a written explanation of the terms of the reduction, the
reasons the reduction has been made and the claimant’s right to
appeal.’.

Anas
Sarwar:The Bill does not appear to contain any
formal appeals process for someone who receives a sanction under
clauses 26 and 27. Amendments 39 and 40 would provide an opportunity
for the Minister to make a clear statement about the appeals process
applying in such circumstances. There is an existing framework under
the current system, yet the Bill does not state whether that framework
will continue or a new one will be introduced. Appeal processes are
important given that sanctions could be imposed as a result of clerical
error or because the individual concerned has made a genuine mistake.
The removal of benefits can have a massive impact on individuals, and
problems need to be addressed swiftly and fairly. Universal credit also
gives rise to heightened concern that an application on one element
might result in a sanction on the entire credit. No detail has been
given about whether elements of universal credit will be firewalled. I
will explain that further in a moment.

Column number: 443

The
new benefits system must be fair and just, and poor administrative
processes should not impact upon an individual’s entitlement.
More vulnerable individuals who are less likely to know their rights
might make unclear statements on their applications. When advice
agencies are losing funding, there is a chance that mistakes could
increase, and there will be a higher risk of people receiving
sanctions. Will the Minister state clearly the Government’s
intentions regarding any appeals process? Will the existing appeals
process continue under secondary legislation, or a new appeals process
be created? Will an appeals process framework be put in place, and when
will the Minister make the detail available?

I mentioned
firewalling—will the universal credit have elements that are
firewalled? I will explain what I mean. At the moment, when there is a
problem with one benefit, it does not necessarily affect all other
payments, except in severe cases. However, combining all elements into
a universal credit might mean that a sanction on one application, for
example a fraudulent claim for housing benefit, will automatically
impact on everything else, for example income support. Preventing this
from happening with universal credit may require separate
administrations so that parts can be paid independently of each other.
Clarification on that issue would be
helpful.

Also,
it is proposed that universal credit will be calculated and paid to
households rather than to individuals, so I am interested to know if
sanctions on one individual will impact upon the entire household and
the total payment. Will there be individual or household firewalling?
Currently child benefit, housing costs, and so on, are all rolled into
one, and there are campaigns to ensure that some payments remain
separate—for example child benefit to the main carer, housing
benefit to the person paying the mortgage or the rent—so that
payments that are needed will be paid. Some clarity on those issues
would be
appreciated.

Stephen
Timms: My hon. Friend raised some telling points and posed
some good questions. The amendments also raise questions in my mind
about a written statement and appeals in the case of sanctions.
Sanctions are a matter on which we must tread with care; they have an
important role in the system, and it is right that the failure to meet
requirements should have consequences if those requirements are to be
effective, but they must be implemented with care. The Bill will give
the Secretary of State the power to impose some very harsh penalties
indeed, including the loss of benefit for three years, which is an
enormous penalty to impose. We do not yet know how this system will
operate, or how frequently penalties of that magnitude will be handed
out. There clearly should be an opportunity for appeal, and as the
Minister pointed out this morning, European law requires that, if
nothing else. It is right that claimants should have the right for
their cases to be heard again, and for the decision to be revoked or
changed if
necessary.

The
written statement required by the amendments would provide a clear
record that could be referred to on appeal. It would include an
explanation of the sanctions that had been applied so that there was no
room for confusion, an explanation of why the sanctions had been
applied, and details of the claimant’s appeal rights so that
there was no possibility that they could be

Column number: 444

unaware of them. When I suggested in a previous amendment that a written
statement would be helpful, the Minister suggested that that would be
too bureaucratic. I hope he would accept that, if somebody’s
benefits are being taken away for three years—at the upper end
of what is permissible here—then it is important that the
reasons should be set out in
writing.

I
think that Members on both sides of the Committee will agree that we
need to take all possible care to ensure that the sanctions imposed do
actually encourage people into work, and do not force them further from
the labour market. Some of the NGOs following our debates have pointed
out instances where sanctions can have the opposite effect, pushing
people further away from the labour market, and potentially causing
those people serious problems. Those include creating rent arrears, or
possibly causing them to lose their home, and nobody is going to be
looking effectively for a job if they are dealing with
homelessness.

We
must also bear it in mind that, to continue to support individuals
after sanctions have expired, advisers need a relationship of trust. I
have been encouraged by what the Minister said about moving to an
arrangement whereby, as far as possible, an individual will work with
one rather than a series of advisers. The amendments are intended to
clarify how part of such a relationship will work in practice. I hope
that the Minister will take the opportunity that is afforded by the
amendments to offer the Committee reassurances about how the sanctions
arrangement will work in practice.

Kate
Green: I join my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the
Member for Glasgow Central in asking that the Minister treads with
great care in relation to the application of sanctions. Evidence on
sanctions, as one of the witnesses in the evidence sessions told us, is
mixed—they work well for some claimants. The evidence on lone
parents, however, shows that sanctions are not particularly effective
at getting people into sustainable work. They cause stress, anxiety,
depression, health problems, family strain and even sometimes family
breakdown. I therefore strongly support the amendments, which would
force a real degree of clarity about the purpose of sanctioning, which
will have to be transparent to the claimant too.

Claimants are
frequently unaware why they have been sanctioned or what the sanction
is intended to achieve. Often they are unaware that they have been
sanctioned at all, so the effects on their labour market behaviour are
negligible. The most vulnerable groups—those who have had little
education, work experience or who face other barriers to
employment—incur sanctions most frequently.

We are
particularly concerned that sanctions should be applied only when great
care has been made to ensure that the claimant understands them.
Claimants must be fully informed about what the sanctions are and the
intention behind them, and advisers should be careful to make claimants
aware of what their impact will be. My hon. Friend the Member for
Glasgow Central has highlighted concerns about the impact of sanctions
on different members of the household, which is particularly important
in relation to health issues.

We are clear
that the sanctions will form a part of the map of welfare reform and of
the universal credit. The amendments are absolutely not designed to say
that

Column number: 445

there should be no sanctions at all, but that sanctions should be
applied in a framework that gives the greatest possible protection to
the
vulnerable.

Chris
Grayling: If the Committee will forgive me, I shall keep
my remarks brief on this group of amendments. We will return to the
detail of sanctions in the next sitting, when I shall answer a number
of the questions that have been raised. Unfortunately, I have to appear
before a Lords Committee at 4.35 pm, so we will have to finish at 4.30
pm. I apologise for that.

Let me take
advantage of the few minutes available simply to offer a clear
reassurance about the process to Opposition Members. Individuals have
an absolutely clear statutory right of appeal to the first-tier
tribunal, which is provided for under the Social Security Act 1998.
Paragraph 45 of schedule 2 to the Bill brings the universal credit
within the scope of the decision-making and appeal system that was
established under the 1998 Act. Claimants who receive a sanction under
universal credit will therefore have equivalent rights of appeal to
those in the current system.

Those clear
systems operated under the previous Government, so hon. Members should
feel comfortable that the statutory requirement is in the provision.
The right is statutory and, as I set out earlier, also applies under
the Human Rights Act 1998. We have no intention whatever of changing
that.

Column number: 446

Under the
provisions, people who are likely to be subject to a sanction will be
clearly informed and will be given notice of the decision. Such a
notice will include details of the claimant’s appeal rights and
other options on how to dispute the decision, such as requesting a
written statement of the reasons for the sanction.

In addition,
we expect the claimant commitment to include a summary of an
individual’s rights. We will do everything necessary to ensure
that people are aware of their rights and are able to respond to them.
Currently, claimants may appeal to the tribunal any decision to reduce
or stop their benefit within a month of being notified. Decisions that
result in a sanction are overturned if the tribunal finds that the
claimant had good reason for not meeting their requirement. My
reassurance for this set of amendments is that there is no reason for
concern, because the legislation as set out in the Bill contains those
rights of appeal. I shall address the other issues regarding sanctions
when we meet again after the Easter break. I conclude my remarks by
wishing all the Committee a peaceful Easter recess and I look forward
to reconvening the debates later this
month.